Why “The Political Compass” Is Inherently Vectorist and How to Correct It

Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 05:26 PM

“The Political Compass”...

...has been used by sociologists and political scientists as the supposed be all and end all of mapping the primary dimensions of social and political sentiment into a space. Supposedly all other dimensions are relatively insignificant when analyzing the dimensionality of political and social attitudes.

It is my hypothesis that the reason for this limited dimensionality is due to the fact that the questionnaires do not systematically include the scale of social organization to which the question applies.

For instance, take the statement “I oppose homosexual behavior.”

Let’s break this down into the following 3 statements:

“I prefer homosexual relations.”
“Homosexuality should be allowed within my nation.”
“I would tolerate the existence of a nation, somewhere in the world, that allowed homosexuality.”

A likely outcome of these statements for a great many people are: “Strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Agree”

However, the questionnaires for “The Political Compass” rarely let people express their tolerance of diversity in any manner except what I have termed “heterosity” or novel, local diversity.

I further hypothesize that this is because the culture of sociologists and political scientists is dominated by vectorists—or people promoting heterosity as a means not only of transmitting more virulent genes and memes globally but evolving virulence via horizontal transmission. The general unspoken assumption in designing their questionnaires is that if one is to be intolerant of some behavior or belief in your personal life, your family, your community, your county, your state or in your nation, that you must therefore be intolerant of the behavior globally. Hence those subjected to these abusive questionnaires are put in a ridiculous position—the outcome of which fails to represent firewalling of cultures to discover what works and what fails in reality, as opposed to in the verbal bantering of academic sophists who nearly to the “person” promotes open borders and heterosity.

Tags:

Comments:

The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They’re indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field.

According to Wikipedia, the compass’ axiality itself was first formulated by “anarcho-communist activist and writer” Albert Meltzer and “Scottish anarchist” and would-be assassin of General Franco, Stuart Christie.

My own feeling about the limited dimensionality of the compass is that it was the first formulation these people arrived at which encapsulated their own prejudices. It has the virtue of simplicity, which one would presume to be a good corollate of longevity. It is supported by psychological research that itself is firmly rooted in the liberal zeitgeist. The only people it offends are, in true Wiesengrund style, those who inhabit a political universe entirely outside, and in opposition to, the zeitgeist: traditional conservatives and nationalists.

Anytime you feel, James, that you want to return to the group discussion on multi-dimensionality or perhaps a model that avoids that through tri-polarity or somesuch, let me know.

One thing glaringly missing is the Monarchy and the golden Mean—The Classical Republic.

Right doesn’t mean Libertarianism—-It means Monarchist!! Don’t let people rearrange and change language. The first assault is Language. Hold fast to the primary meanings of words. Don’t let Marxist and Commies redefine words!

Hitler is of the Left!!!! Read the First biography of Hilter by Konrad Heiden, in Der Fuhrer reports that “They occassionaly referred to their party as a ‘party of the Left.” (pg 94) Parallels of Hitler are found in Greece. His party was called “National SOCIALISM”. Socialism is of the left. They combined Nationalsim with Socialism. Socialism was still a levelling and egalitarian movement. Hitler hated the Royalty and hated the Aristocracy and the nobles that conspired with National Socialism were useful idiots for Hitler.

That paradigm of Vectorism is just so much BS. I agree with Mr. Bowery—it is channeling.

Perhaps. But to be fair to the compass, Hitler is not places to the far right, as most would expect him to be.
Can National Socialism really be described as a levelling ideology? I don’t think so. Egalitarian? How so? This isn’t a challenge, I’d just like to see you explain it.

There is an excellent book, Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn’s Liberty or Equality with over 900 footnotes. It is an excellent resource on the development of Fascism/National Socialism.

Hitler declared: “This revolution of ours is the exact counterpart of the French Revolution”. Revolutionaries are leftists.

What happened is that the French Revolution which was a Leftist Revolution spawned Nationalism. Nationalism was first a tool for Leftism.

Then, in 1848, with the rise of International Socialism which is Communism and the destruction of the nations, Conservative people promoted Nationalism. Then, it became Rightist.

Then, people who were Nationalist but wanted Socialism as well, combined the two and Nationalism became a revolutionary tool and also a tool to fight Democratic Socialism the brother of Communism. Democratic Socialism and Communism were both run by Jews and both Internationalist. Fascism is Socialist. It is a reaction (but not a conservative reactionary program) against the Internationalists in both Democratic Socialism and Communism.

Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn writes, “National Socialism was ideologically the full heir, and probably the most complete synthesis, of all the ideas Springing directly or indirectly from the French Revolution; it as a fulfilment, not a “relapse into the Dark Ages”. Pg 247.

The party platform of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the DAP, the predecessor of the National Socialist Workers Party (Nazi) stated in 1903,

“We are a liberal, nationalist party which fights strenously against reaction, against feudal, clerical, capitalist priviledges, as well as against all alien influences.” pg 255.

“Reaction” is the term for Royalty and Aristocracy. So it was a levelling egalitarian movement. It is Nihilist since it seeks the destruction of the Old Order.

The points about the Political Compass are well taken, but don’t go far enough.

Maybe everyone hasn’t been out of wonderland long enough to rub all the pixiedust from their eyes; but the Right - Left axis is just as worthless as this little vectorist gem.

Two examples spring to mind immediately: if conservatives are so keen to preserve things, why do we have to poach from the (so-called) Left in order to advocate for sane or even farsighted environmental policy?

Why do more Leftists understand the critical Judeo-globalist nexus and label it accurately? Why is there no “Counterpunch” of the Right? Why must we put up with decades of moaning and groaning from Thomas Fleming about how demons caused the Renaissance while leftists are in the streets, demonstrating and risking their comfort and their lives, against the economic co-ordination of the whole world? MR denizens often claim hegemony for “left” discourse, but I don’t see it: these protests are left off the news, are spun by interviewing “safe” representatives, etc.

Why not “rightists” at the anti-WTO marches? Are rednecks not losing enough jobs?

For those of a more historical bent, who often complain that the left is the root of the antiWestern strain in the United States: why did Margaret Sanger work so hard to bring birth control to the public? In her own words: to reduce “human weeds”, whom she left no doubt was her estimation of the black populations of the North. H.G. Wells spoke openly of the gradual downbreeding and eventual extermination of the Black and Yellow Races: something even teeth-gnashing anti Hitlerites can’t pin on their favorite voodoo cushion.

The turn of the century left was MORE committed to eugenics and a White World than the Right, which I believe spent its political capital in the early twentieth century resisting advances in anaesthesia while simultaneously welding Darwins idea of the ‘fittest’ to the fattest pigs in the capital stable. Here’s Wells again, on what the “Right” amounted to in the early twentieth century, and why it was so important to stop it:

“Aggressive, intensely aquisitive, reproductive people—the Jew is the very type of it—are the people who will prevail in a social system based on private property and mercentile competition. No creative power, no nobility, no courage can battle against them. And below in the slums and factories, what will be going on? The survival of a race of stunted toilers, with great resisting power to infection, contagion, and fatigue, omnivorous as rats.

[. . .]

Since the fittest under present conditions is manifestly the ratlike, the survival of the fittest that is going on now is one that is highly desirable to stop as soon as possible, and so far Socialism will arrest the survival of the fittest.”

- H. G. Wells, New Worlds for Old, page 199

Wells analysis is still correct:governmental intervention is the only thing that can, via incentive and taxation, reverse the actual eugenic effect of capitalism: the gradual disappearance of the culture-bearing strata accompanied by the roachlike proliferation of “a race of stunted toilers”. Although capitalists - the “Right” - is always ready to bring in more stunted toilers when the current supply is, say, making enough in daily wages to eat regularly or own houses. I live in Texas, and the omniverous snout of Capital is rooting out more stunted toilers from Our Friend to the South every day. Of appetite, there is no end, and Capitalism is primarily a disease of appetite.

The film “Idiocracy” might be a worthwile viewing for those unclear on this point. How did the Right spend its political capital in the early twentieth century, while the Left concerned itself with the weal of the Race? They declared moneymaking equivalent with Darwinian fitness, and presented this equivalency as good reason to deny the simplest forms of human aid to the ‘failed’: to people who had been ruined by the financial shenanigans of the Vampire Class at the top.

And we want to present ourself as the radical right? Is that because we believe there is not enough top down predation? Or because anaesthesia in Childbirth is still offending old Nobodaddy? Can someone explain this to me?

This is not a brief for ‘leftism’, it is more a question against the ongoing utility of the idea and the term ‘right’, which originates in the buildup to the most unhappy of historical occurances, the French Revolution. Of any event which gave us the Napoleonic Wars, the “Temple of Reason”, Saint Just, Robespierre, and the civic emancipation of the Jews, can any good at all have come? I say no, and urge readers here, who have already cast off so much bad thinking, to similarly discard the verbiage that attends it.

I am a man of reason. It is apparent to me, that despite a few tics in the funcitonal prototypes, that the basic model worked out between Mussolini and Mr. Hitler, is the only way forward for the any institution that even remotely resembles a nation state. Even the Wright Brother’s first plane only flew thirty yards! If our political center of weight were to shift to a larger society (say, the West), with the countries comprising it playing the role of the American States (pre-Constitution, of course!) the rules are still the same: five hundred years of the Modern era and every experiment with republican government has ended with the same conclusions: we must control for a)overly large concentrations of capital b)foreign influence c)hostile ethnies, d)cheap imported labor which serves Capital but not the State and e)preventing the imposition of a privately held central bank or destroying said institution where one exists.

These conclusions are not Leftist or Rightist. They are experimental results in the largest open air laboratories ever conceived, involving millions of people over thousands of years. The numbers have been crunched backwards and forwards, but will not yield partisan results.

The only systems of rule proposed in the last five hundred years which correct for the repeated observed weaknesses of prototypical Western large scale social organization were Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany - both, when not at war, were widely admired in the world at large and featured a happy citizenry that - and most forget this - WERE FREE TO LEAVE AT ANY TIME. Most Italian immigrants in the United States - 60% - returned to Italy, as life there contrasted nicely with what they had encountered in the United States. And lets not even think what a few simple economic reforms did for Germany . . . a nation that labored under international sanction (Untermeyer and his “Judea declares war on Germany” - anyone remember that?). All the amazing achievements from 33 to 39 - autobahn, worker’s vacations, ending hyperinflation, ending massive unemployment - were realized under a system of barter with other nations using German labor as collateral - not gold. No IMF loans for them - just constant opprobrium from the Yankee-Judean press.

Now, putting the side to one moment questions of torchlit rallies, an undue emphasis on opera, and various foreign policy misadventures, how can such a system be classfied Left or Right? Even if “socialistic” (in a way the current American economy is not?) in form, excellence, initiative, private property, social stratification, protected contract, and class distinction were all allowed under both systems, which also saw to labor’s demands against capital, defending against the influence of capital on the political process, central banks in private hands, fiat money, and undue accumulation. You could be rich, but you couldn’t stink and weren’t allowed to buy politicians.

If this describes my general political outlook - and I regard myself as a ‘nationalist’ in the wider sense; Nietzche’s “Good European” - then how am I Right, Left, Authoritarian, or Collectivist? I simply want standard Western forms of government subject to a new set of firewalls on them, that’s all. The basic operating system seems very sound to me.

Anyway: the original point. I don’t think of myself as ‘a man of the right’, though I read TAC and Chronicles, but I don’t think of myself as being either of the Left or the “center”, either. I am a man of the West, which means that I affirm hierarchy (although the more flexible and blunted recent versions with the feedback loops installed, and not hierarchy 1.0, which I feel was rightfully replaced), maximum individual autonomy possible that is consistent with both order, survival, and propogation of the national unit or Race and its Culture and Civilization - physically and culturally - private property and the free market, but am VEHEMENTLY against capitalism, which has never amounted to anything but a policy of free love for money and the subordination of all else to that, qualified elitism (NOT heredetary aristocrats, who are worse than worthless), elections by lot from an preselected pool of aspirants, economic autarchy to whatever degree feasible, and so forth and so on.

I realize how crazy this will sound, but the simple fact is this: political theory is not rocket science. The bulk of it was nailed down by the Ancients almost three thousand years ago: please consult Aristotle and Polybius if you doubt me. Another two thousand years of experimentation has allowed for some valuable studies - we really do know what works and what doesn’t, what systems changes into systems, and in what order, and under which conditions. It isn’t hard to understand or predict - even the collapse of the United States is at the precise fracture points the Founding Fathers fretted over, specifically that adventuresome Executive Branch. So, to my desiderata, let me add the request for the Presidency - all European Executives - to be replaced by proconsuls. For those new to Classical politicals terms, that means that the Presidency is simultaneously occupied by two men, who keep each other (theoretically) out of trouble.

To all this, sadly, must be added one thing: the doctrine of eternal warfare - though not necessarily against an outside foe. Somewhere in almost all of our hearts is a place where we believe that government is a code to be cracked: it isn’t. There is no “answer” to the government problem, no once and for all, no happy ever after. Once a sound government has been instituted, the only proper attitude towards it - by everyone, no exceptions - is the same attitude held towards a fire by a peasant in a log cabin or a thatched hut home. What is necessary to keep us from freezing and to cook our food will kill us IN ONE SECOND if we turn our back. Government is not an intellectual problem but a moral effort. It is eternal struggle and nothing else - just like owning a car, and for the same reason. If a populace has not placed as the object of its well wishing the rest of the organism it is a part of, then it is soon distracted by fatal trivia and then destroyed. In Communism and the modern versions of democratic Capitalism, the nation serves the state. Under Fascism, the state serves the nation.

I think the best statement of the irrelevance of the Left-Right division is this: Hitler and Mussolini created a life of some sort for their poor, allowed them into a national family in which their labor could be a source of pride - a gift. As the antropolgist Victor Turner once said, the real problem that poor people have is that they cannot meaningfully contribute - cannot return the gifts which society proffers. As he believed the gift economy had never ended, he saw this as a perpetual ethical difficulty. I see that difficulty as being overcome by Fascism, which itself cannot ever be meaningfully called Right or Left. To fully integrate the working classes into organic national life, it would be necessary to monitor their reproduction: a limit on absolute personal liberty.

Eugenics to secure the health of the state and to integrate the poor into national life as its physical foundation: is this Right or Left? Or somethign new?

In contrast, Franco (a figure I don’t particularly like) fought for the power of the Church and the landed families, so that his nation could be kept in feudal poverty and ignorance forever. Better than Communism, I’ll grant you, but nothing to write home about.

Franco was a Rightist. I have nothing to do with him, and can’t believe anyone here would want to, either. Conservatives, “radical rightists”, “revolutionary conservatives”, and so forth: are they struggling for somethign more than our physical reduction to serfdom (Capitalism or hereditary Aristocracy, take your pick) and mental servitude/ totalitarianism (Dominicans, Opus Dei, Missouri Synod - again, please choose one). To confuse the sadistic imbalances of the Throne and Altar crowd with the maintenance of eternal truths in human society, a la Lao Tzu, is bait and switch. C.S. Lewis is not Joseph De Maistre, and it is dishonest to substitute one for the other.

Turning up the contrast: Solon rescued an Athens in crisis, in part, by massive land reform. Is Solon a leftist? Did he seize all the assets of the rich to achieve demagogic ends? Did he set the lower orders to rule over Athens? Or was he a Rightist?

And if Solon was a Rightist, under what Right-tending impulse did he seize and distribute land holdings?

As to “conservatives” . . . suffice it to say the very first one of this lamentable type, Edmund Burke, betrayed himself and the whole ‘movement’ he is supposed to be the fons et origo of when he observed that one can’t be seen to be in opposition to what the mob might regard as Providence, i.e. the old bugbear “progress”. Since that time, conservatism as a psychological approach to political reality has always proved itself a losing strategy: always worried at appearing insufficiently progressive, finally passing every novelty suggested by the forces of disintigration, with more grumbling than those who press it upon them, but supporting it just the same.

I reject “Right” and “Left”. I reject Jewess Ayn Rand’s “Collectivism” as well as Jew Adorno’s “Authoritarianism”. And finally, I reject the notion of “conservatism” - reality as if only Vishnu and not Shiva existed - as the racialism of boobies. People with the beginnings of sound instinct cluster round their little college-cult texts of Richard Kirk so they can have an identity other than the one they are too cowardly to claim - White! Many of our converts will come from the Right, just as many will be Libertarians, and many will come from the Left. I fail to see anything the Right has done that merits the preservation of its name as we move into new territories only haltingly explored by the Italians and the Germans. Burke, Disraeli, Russell Kirk: standard bearers or ballast? I say push these idols overboard.

A racially homogenous republic with a sane money policy and some variant of the Nuremburg Laws would suffice even a moderately moral populace for a very long time.

Understanding all this, as I said, hardly constitues climbing Mount Parnassus. Much less does it require joining some dues paying “club” for a let’s pretend “identity” - even the identity “fascism”. I find that the word ‘right’ is a group identifier - and I am leery of words and concepts such as “radical right” because, given the absolutel failure of any kind of conservative or rightist approach to forestall our current disaster, I regard the idea of a resurgent New Right as one that, logically, will fail even more quickly and disastrously than its predecessor. de Benoists loopy comments of late tend to bear this out. New Right, Radical Right, Conservative Right . . . can anyone give me a reason to imagine that ONE MORE fix to the engine is going to win us the Race?

Failed approaches should be avoided. Even a conservative can see that.

Edmund Burke: born in Dublin 12th January 1729. A Catholic, and Whig member of parliament for the (corrupt) borough of Wendover, thence the (corrupt) borough of Malton. Protege of Rockingham until the latter’s death, and uneasy supporter of Fox until collapse of the Fox-North coallition in 1783. Its successor was the Tory administration of Pitt the Younger. Thereafter, and until his death in 1779, Burke and the Whigs were in opposition.

Burke’s reputation is held in high estimation by the American right principally because he supported independence, and by the British Establishment of his own and later years because he was contemptuous of the French revolution. He was profoundly opposed to political equality, and in that regard was and only could be a Whig (the Whigs later found a narrow, Burkean path between granting political goods and resisting revolution by which they could remain the elite in an egalitarian democracy, and their political heirs remain so today).

He was not “the first Conservative”. Pitt invented or formalised a political Conservatism out of trends in English political life that were themselves rooted in the enthronement of the first Tudor.

Personally, I see him as an Irish opportunist, a talker and what today we would know by that rather Clintonite sophistry, a networker. None of these things are noticeably connected to that deep well of natural instinct that informs the true English Conservative.

As to the use of the term “radical right”, I employ it not for its forensic precision but because it communicates something so much more fresh and interesting than the enemy’s label, “far right”. No, my ambitions in this respect do not stretch very far. I am content to speak in terms my audience will understand. If any among them aspire to appreciate the limitations of convention in dealing with the politics of ethnocentrism, then they are already ours.

“Revolutionary Conservatism” is an occupied seat, alas - though, again, I have employed the term in a specific context. We are revolutionaries, however, since the overturning of liberalism and it’s elite is the principal (though, you will be glad to hear, not exclusive) precondition for the re-establishment of Europeans as peoples whose continuity is secured by the possession of land.

On the place of National Socialism and Fascism on the conventional left-right spectrum, this has been debated here often. Doubtless it will be debated again. I have no objection to declaring both “off the chart”, though I think that is possibly more true of Italian Fascism than National Socialism.

I am not sure, WM, how much of a loyal Party member you would have been back in those heady beergarden days. Politics is the exercise of power, and I wonder if you would have acquiesced in its exercise then as much as you seem to think you would.

Thanks to James Bowery for stating, in a coherent post, the problems with the “political compass.” Of course, there are those (remember?) who argue that even the “compass” is too detailed, and that a simple left-right continuum encompasses all we need to know about politics. After all, “studies” of your typical pot-bellied coach potato lout - those who think that the entire spectrum of political thought is to be found between the “far-right” George Bush and the “far-left” John Kerry - say that the linear continuum is alright. So there! Do you support or oppose a cut in the capital gains tax? - the sum total of introspective political philosophy.

GW may also remember the stubborn refusal of some here to consider alternatives, including the “binning” method of political analysis.

Fred: “I’d be more than willing to sign in with a code-word in order to post here…”

Tell it to Guessedworker, Fred. It would seem to me that the password-assigned-to-a-single-blogger approach would assist in the trolling/spamming problem, and also deal with the “problem”, discussed on a previous MR radio program, of varying pseudonyms.

Binning is fine as far as it goes. But IMO it fails to distinguish the political dynamic. A bin is a bin is a bin. It’s an easy way to be accurate, but it is a labelling system rather than a spatial system.

When one begins the process of working out a Compass, and the sheet of paper on the desk is blank, one is, naturally enough, burdened by an idealistic intent. Ideally, therefore, it would be good to arrive at a model that demonstrates the dynamic qualities of each political conviction (ie, in accordance - or not - with what is psychologically real or evolved in Western Man).

On our, I presume, Subcon nuisance, it offers an opportunity to understand Salter, at least. Seriously, though, I won’t change to a monitored Amren or TIW system. I value what we have, and much prefer to eliminate each example of gibberish than give it up.

excellent essay and one that underscores the dangers of whites who develop familial ties with non-whites and then allow that to cloud their judgement; i.e., Derbyshire, McConnell, Peter Gray, and Fred Reed.

One minor point: does Reed actually have a biological child with a non-white woman? If no, it doesn’t make sense to talk about his EGI being involved in his decision to write his essay. It’s more of a proximate motivation: he has chosen to throw his lot in with Mexicans, Asians, etc., he prefers their company, and white racial nationalism is an unpleasant incovinience that disrupts his private world. Those are proximate concerns, not ultimate.

Of course, if he does in fact have a mixed child, then the fate of his own genes is intertwined with that of the mother, and he cannot fully separate his person genetic interests from that of the mother’s race. In that case, we would talk of Reed’s personal genetic interest, not his EGI, which has an ethnic component - actually the two would be in conflict.

With hybrid offspring, Reed’s personal genetic interests would cause him to oppose ideologies that would boost his EGI, for example, ideologies supporting white survival and separatism.

Inspired by comments by “GNXP stinks” in another thread, I searched Majorityrights.com for the term “GNXP” and went back and read most of the posts that showed up in the results. By the time I had discovered MR JW Holliday was already “On Holliday”, so most of the posts in the search results from him were new to me.

And Holy Sh*& was this guy good. The fact that he is no longer posting is a profound loss to not only MR but indeed to the entire white racialist movement.

More to the point about people with mixed race children is the fact that few separatist proposals make room for them. Their choices, as they see them, are:

1) Be successful enough that imposition of a libertarian allowance for racial discrimination in private matters won’t matter.

2) Throw in their lot with the current regime’s vectorist policies.

In reality, most of the technically talented men who ended up having children with an Asian wife are quite torn between these two, but are forced by the realities of H-1b visas etc. to accept that they will never be successful enough to do anything but support the vectorists that be. This is ultimately a loser for these guys and at some level they know it—for the same reason the young Chinese men rioted in opposition to the importation of blacks to China’s universities.

am not sure, WM, how much of a loyal Party member you would have been back in those heady beergarden days. Politics is the exercise of power, and I wonder if you would have acquiesced in its exercise then as much as you seem to think you would.

You see things very clearly, GW.

Can you more easily imagine me as one of the so called “March Violets”, who signed on after it was clear that NSDAP had taken the day?

Counterhistoricals are always fascinating precisely because so revealing. We should return to this question someday.

GNXP stinks: yes, that is my essay about Fred Reed.

Also, Reed has two daughters: one “Anglo” one, from a previous marriage, who is his own biologically, and a marrano stepdaughter, from his current Jewish-Mexican wife. There is no direct biological relationship, but consider: would your thinking be unaltered in such an arrangement? Call it the “Esther” effect - another major figure who suffers it is Alex Jones, who stands back from the truth in every broadcast . . . and berates those who speak of it openly. As he has a child by his Esther, his EGI - in the formal sense - is involved.

I see you as one who would have struggled between the dictates of your heart and your head, finding - after February 1943 - that they led in different directions. At some point, I think, you would have been tempted to conclude that the physical survival of Volk and Fatherland was the most fundamental necessity. You would have allowed into your thoughts the possibility that the aims of the Party could be reignited at a later time ... that there was a point beyond which the Volk could not be sacrificed, and that point was passed ... that the die-hard mentality you could see developing all around you was horribly wrong and indeed, ultimately, treasonous.

Since you are not at all a conventional type of person, I have no doubt that you could not have lasted the course. At least, once your sympathies had been discovered, you would, as a Nachtjagdgeschwader pilot whose face was known all over the country, have been left in a small, grey room with a luger, to take the only course open to you.

It is my hypothesis that the reason for this limited dimensionality is due to the fact that the questionnaires do not systematically include the scale of social organization to which the question applies.

For instance, take the statement “I oppose homosexual behavior.”

Let’s break this down into the following 3 statements:

“I prefer homosexual relations.”
“Homosexuality should be allowed within my nation.”
“I would tolerate the existence of a nation, somewhere in the world, that allowed homosexuality.”

A likely outcome of these statements for a great many people are: “Strongly disagree”, “Disagree”, “Agree”

However, the questionnaires for “The Political Compass” rarely let people express their tolerance of diversity in any manner except what I have termed ”heterosity” or novel, local diversity.

Andrew Cohen provides a developmental model that divides the evolution of consciousness into 6 stages with each higher stage transcending and including every lower stage in a nest of holons or concentric circles to increasingly higher levels of transcendance and inclusivity. It is hierarchically arranged in a nest of being although this hierarchy is not a dominator hierarchy as in authoritarian fascist governments but is, instead, a value hierarchy referring to degrees of interiority or consciousness. Since you are using “homosexuality” as an example, I will also add another more fundamental stage that is prior to egocentric, and that is biocentric.:

biocentric - pre-conscious; prior to identity; physiological and biological immersion
egocentric - pre-egoic magical (narcissitic)
ethnocentric - identity with bloodline, family, tribe (ethnicity)
mythocentric - identity with people who share the same creation myths and religious worldview (mythic)
nationcentric - national identity with people who are members of the same nation (nationalistic)
worldcentric - identity with all human beings (pluralistic)
kosmocentric - universal identity, self-transendant (integral)

The reason I chose to place “homosexuality” at biocentric is because there is an emerging scientific consensus on the biological theory of homosexuality. While there isn’t yet conclusive proof for a biological cause, researchers have identified several biological factors that are related to sexual orientation such as genes, hormones, and brain structure. Additionally, every gay friend that I’ve ever consulted on the issue believes that his or her “gayness” was never never a matter of “personal choice,” but that s/he was “born that way.”

I realize, however, that you are merely using “homosexuality” as an example of human diversity. The real question, then, boils down to toleration for human diversity and whether or not this capacity is contingent upon or adjustable according to scales of social organization, as you assert.

According to Ken Wilber and many other developmental theorists, the capacity to tolerate human diversity is an evolutionary leap in consciousness from ethnocentric* to worldcentric consciousness with each higher stage transcending and including every lower in a nest of holons, that is, in a nested concentric spheres of being. Because this capacity for toleration for diversity is an “emergent” realization or “leap” from ethnocentric to worldcentric values, this toleration for diversity is extended pluralistically (globally) to all humans irrespective of ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other forms of more local identities..

* (By “ethnocentric,” Ken Wilber is referring also to Andrew Cohen’s subcategories of “mythocentric” and “nationcentric,” which are subcategories or variants of “ethnocentric” so are transcended and included into the broader category of “ethnocentric”).

That being the case, tolerance of diversity is a worldcentric realization. If you are intolerant of homosexuality in your nation but you tolerate the existence of a nation, somewhere in the world, that allowed homosexuality, then you are not worldcentric but ethnocentric. Meaning that you are tolerant of the differences that are generally accepted and tolerated within your respective locality—be it biocentric, egocentric, ethocentric, mythocentric, or nation-centric—but that you do not extend the same tolerance globally to embrace diversity on a more global scale.

Conversely, to phrase it in a more negative tone of intolerance as you’ve done so above, it means that you are intolerant at some level to homosexuality within your respective locality—be it biocentric, egocentric, ethnocentric, mythocentric, or nationcentric; but that you tolerate the existence of homosexuals to exist somewhere else in the world [but not in MY COUNTRY] in other nations that tolerate their existence. On a very superficial level, the idea seems “tolerant” in that you are tolerate of nations elsewhere that are tolerant of homosexuality. However, since you do not tolerate homosexuality in your own nation, it is very likely that you would tolerate nations elsewhere that are INtolerant of homosexuality, too; it is not your concern. Meaning that you have values that are nationalistic, ethnocentric, and authoritarian.

Whereas authoritarian forms of government are “ethnocentric,” libertarian forms of governments are “worldcentric.” There is therefore a scale of values that are divided by forms of social organizations between ethnocentric authoritarian on the one hand and worldcentric libertarian on the other.

Thus, your hypothesis is wrong. The Political Compass does indeed systematically include the scale of social organization to which the question applies. The question is left open so as to permit you to draw your own conclusions as to level of inclusivity to which you wish to extend the concept of “tolerance.” Depending on your response, you are rated somewhere between ethnocentric and worldcentric, that is between authoritarian and libertarian on a social scale. This is the vertical line. And depending on your economic school of thought (which differs from the social dimension, which is concerned more specifically to social organization and levels of consciousness-development), you are rated somewhere between capitalist and communist on an economic scale. This is the horizontal line.

So in the final analysis, tolerance of diversity on the social scale is not so much a “social construct” or individual preference so much as it is contingent upon one’s degree of consciouusness-development, that is, degree of consciousness itself. It that sense, the Political Compass is a useful tool for discerning the basic differences between ethnocentric and worldcentric values by placing them between authoritarian and egalitarian vertically-linear hierarchical lines. It is not so good at differentiating worldcentric from kosmocentric, which, by contrast, is a stage of development confined to less than 5% of the world population today. But for its purposes, does well to define the political and consciousness center of gravity for 95% of the world population, which is worldcentric and below.

The reason I chose to place “homosexuality” at biocentric is because there is an emerging scientific consensus on the biological theory of homosexuality.

This position is weak at best. Even gay activists disavow the gay “gene” theory. It does little to explain the variance in homosexuality and makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective. Gayness is not adaptive. Current hypotheses include Cochran’s germ theory and the chimera theory. An autoimmune condition, like MS, may better explain it.

Whereas authoritarian forms of government are “ethnocentric,” libertarian forms of governments are “worldcentric.” There is therefore a scale of values that are divided by forms of social organizations between ethnocentric authoritarian on the one hand and worldcentric libertarian on the other.

Islam is an authoritarian form of government which possesses, by your definition, a world-centric view. Anarcho libertarianism may also be ethnocentric.

All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc.. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.

There is much more to consider before declaring James’ position “wrong”.

Evidently, you do not understand that nationalism is more than fascism. It is not authoritarian to pursue one’s own natural interests because those interests happen to be ethnic rather than individual. Today the authoritarian imperative is that Europeans must pursue the interests of other ethnic groups and not their own and, like it or not, live a life of atomised individualism as their living space is taken from them.

Now that suits Mr Cohen’s ethnic interests, of course, since it is good for Jews to demonise the interests of Europeans as “authoritarian”. Virtually nothing a Jew says that touches on European rights and interests is worth listening to. Everything is warped.

The Political Compass cannot incorporate ethnic interests without warping them. Why? Because it is foundd on the “findings” of Warper-in-Chief Theodor dorno - he of “The Authoritarian Personality”.

The reason I chose to place “homosexuality” at biocentric is because there is an emerging scientific consensus on the biological theory of homosexuality.

You wrote:

This position is weak at best. Even gay activists disavow the gay “gene” theory. It does little to explain the variance in homosexuality and makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective. Gayness is not adaptive. Current hypotheses include Cochran’s germ theory and the chimera theory. An autoimmune condition, like MS, may better explain it.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying above. You seem to be under the impression that by “biocentric,” I am merely referring to “gene” theory or to adaptibility of a certain gene or phenotype within a given species. Actually, By “biocentric,” I am referring to any or all possible biological factor(s) (whether genetic or otherwise) that may possibly contribute to degree of gayness or straightness.

A growing body of evidence across a variety of fields points to several biological factors that are related to sexual orientation—none of which are “conclusive,” of course—yet all of which combined contribute to an emerging scientific consensus on a biological cause for sexual orientation. Perhaps you didn’t process the remainder of that paragraph, which went like this:

While there isn’t yet conclusive proof for a biological cause, researchers have identified several biological factors that are related to sexual orientation such as genes, hormones, and brain structure.

I furthermore differentiated the scientific view from the personal views held be various gay friends: all of whom, when asked, thought they were “born that way.”:

Additionally, every gay friend that I’ve ever consulted on the issue believes that his or her “gayness” was never never a matter of “personal choice,” but that s/he was “born that way.”

Needless to say, opinions such as above based on personal testimonials of being “born that way” do not in any way offer anything definitive with respect to scientific evidence to support a “gene theory” to gayness. But neither did I assert such a thing which you seem to imply. My only assertion was that gayness, from a strictly biological standpoint, is not chosen personally. What is more, there is an emerging scientific consensus for a biological basis to sexual orientation itself. As such, homosexuality in and of itself is innate and is non-negotiable from a biological standpoint to any rules of law or to any monolithic standards of sexual orientation that a society or nation may wish to impose upon its citizens or people. Any nation or society that imposes such monolithic rules or permits such intolerant practices on any level—whether in the private sector or in the public—operates from a lower center of gravity, in terms of spiritual evolution or degree of consciousness. This lower level or center of gravity is referred to as “ethnocentric,” whether with respect to “nationcentric,” “ethnocentric,” or “mythocentric.” All of these forms of consciousness are pre-modern traditional realizations concerning mythic-membership and belongingness to an authoritarian monolothic society or nation. In extreme forms, it is fascist.

As for gayness not being “adaptive,” you could very well apply the same logic to asexuals who, like homosexuals, appear also to be “non-adaptive” from a genetic standpoint of procreation. Yet asexuals exist as do homosexuals in nearly every population throughout the world since time immemorial. Whether or not they can “adapt” or be assimilated into their culture in their natural or native way is totally contingent upon the degree of tolerance accorded to them by the “normals” or dictates of society. Yet on a genetic level, they seem to adapt just fine biologically, as one of your authors also contends (link, upper left-hand corner):

Well, asexual people die out every generation, but nothing seems to prevent some from being born every generation. For instance, in a national probability British sample of over 18,000 people, roughly 1% of people assessed reported that they were asexual, i.e., had no sexual interest in either men or women[1].

As for the limitations of these various fields to explain the “variance” in sexual orientation, this fact in and of itself does not in any way diminish or invalidate the growing body of evidence that supports the theories that various biological factors are related to sexual orientation. Especially considering that the fields that are devoted to these studies are relatively new and are still at their infancy stage.

James’s position is “wrong” because he got the world wrong. Without even knowing his score, I can tell you that he exists somewhere on the far upper-right hand quadrant of the chart. So the test is valid in that is is capable of assessing degrees of consciousness from worldcentric to below.

The test itself is worldcentric. However, based on his post, he is ethnocentric. As such, he is immersed within a premodern ethnocentric national identity which is incapable of grasping the modern and postmodern global worldcentric values and center of gravity from which the test itself operates. Thus, he is in no position to be able to meaningfully correct or critically assess this model from a global perspective. He does not possess a global perspectivity of three-dimensional space but only a national identity which is mythical, unperspectival, and two-dimensional (see Jean Gebser, The Ever-Present Origin).

Islam is an authoritarian form of government which possesses, by your definition, a world-centric view. Anarcho libertarianism may also be ethnocentric.

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion for me. Most Islamic nations practice a form of authoritarianism. As such, they are ethnocentric rather than worldcentric in terms of center of gravity. I am not aware of any Islamic nations that are worldcentric, that is, egalitarian or anti-authoritarian.

Anarcho-libertarianism may exhibit some degree of ethnocentricity (authoritarianism) but it would fall in the negative range between 0 to -10, with “0” being the “most” ethnocentric/authoritarian and with “-10 being “least” ethnocentric/authoritarian. However, because “ethnocentric” refers to authoritarian forms of government, it is impossible for a genuine form of anarcho-libertarianism to be also authoritarian (that is, it is impossible for a genuine form of anarcho-libertarianism to exist on a scale in the positive range on the vertical authoritarian line). If it exists in the positive vertical range it is no longer liberatarian but authoritarian, whether libertarian or anarcho-libertarian. That is to say, it is impossible to be BOTH libertarian and authoritarian, which would be an oxymoron (unless the vertical position is at “0”, which would mean that it is at a half-way point between authoritarianism and libertarianism.

However, in extreme forms (say, at -8 to -10 on the vertical social scale), it is possible for anarcho-libertarianism to be libertarian (worldcentric) in addition to egocentric (narcissistic). This is because too much liberty and too much anti-authority results in a virulent social meme which is essentially a reversion back to chaos and narcissistic attititudes of individualism and selfishness, that is, egocentric, which is below the level of ethnocentric.

Barbi’s view is there’s a hierarchy with egocentric at the bottom, then ethnocentric a little higher and almost as unsatisfactory, then worldcentric, which is the one for all proper people nowadays, then cosmocentric at the top, which is the one for the really super-evolved minds, but only a very tiny percentage of the population, something like the Heaven’s Gate members who all drank Kool-Aid to get beamed up to the space ship travelling behind the comet Hale-Bopp (which is why no one with a telescope could see the space ship — it was traveling behind the comet, you see, out of line of sight of earth ... yes, that’s it ...... right, Barbi? ......). Barbi’s chosen a great internet name for herself, as I believe the Barbi Doll espouses the same or very similar philosophical views, correct me if I’m wrong.

Evidently, you do not understand that nationalism is more than fascism. It is not authoritarian to pursue one’s own natural interests because those interests happen to be ethnic rather than individual. Today the authoritarian imperative is that Europeans must pursue the interests of other ethnic groups and not their own and, like it or not, live a life of atomised individualism as their living space is taken from them.

So long as your natural or ethnic interests permit people of other ethnicities to coexist peacefully within the your nation without infringing upon their personal rights or civil liberties, it is fine to celebrate one’s own ethnic identity.

If your natural or ethnic interests infringe upon the rights and civil liberties of those outside of your mythic-membership within your own nation, then you are being a fascist. Whereas the former (paragraph above) is a healthy form of mythic-membership and ethnic identity, the latter is a destructive and virulent form of mythic-membership and ethnic identity, such as Hitler’s fascism and the KKK of the United States.

Now that suits Mr Cohen’s ethnic interests, of course, since it is good for Jews to demonise the interests of Europeans as “authoritarian”. Virtually nothing a Jew says that touches on European rights and interests is worth listening to. Everything is warped.

I don’t live in Europe so I can’t personally speak on the demonization of Europeans by the Jews. I thought that if Jews live in Europe, then they are European, too. Why would they want to demonize themselves?

On the other hand, you make a distinction between Jews and European. Perhaps you are not referring to continental identity but to ethnic differences.

If your particular ethic European rights and interests do not infringe upon the rights and civil liberties of Jews, I see no problem with these odd interests of yours. However, if your interests do not permit you to treat a fellow citizen who is Jewish in a manner that is disrespectful, then that is just plain racist and hence your demonization would be well-deserved by Jews and by all other Europeans. Most of whom I would imagine would not share your ethnocentric views.

The Political Compass cannot incorporate ethnic interests without warping them. Why? Because it is foundd on the “findings” of Warper-in-Chief Theodor dorno - he of “The Authoritarian Personality”.

I suggest you wake up.

I’m sorry to inform you that I am fully conscious and awake; whereas you appear to be in a state of wishful dreaming and mythic polarity. If your dreams of ethnic purity and identity place you at a range that is intolerable for you, perhaps you should wake up and take a good hard look at yourself and re-evaluate your ways. Everyone has a degree of ethnocentricity. An ideal score is a timeless eternal center of 0,0. But if your ethnocentrism places you oppose, I would suggest that you perhaps try to be more inclusive and worldcentric while maintaining your ethic interests and identities.

Barbi it’s time to ask your race. What is it? (Your photo identifies you as, I’d say, either Mexican or Oriental; in any case non-white, wherefore your ideas are in no way original, but utterly predictable: as a non-white you’re merely tooting your own horn to the disadvantage of whites.)

I’ve taken that idiotic test twice, a couple of years apart, and scored nearly dead-center both times — nearly 0,0. And I’m what people with barbie-doll-brain syndrome call “ethnocentric.” In fact, I’m as “ethnocentric” as it gets, according to that terminology.

No. What I am is a normal person who opposes genocide (and idiotic tests).

Are regulations and freedom inherently contradictory? If racism is bad, then regulating racism is good. If sexism and homophobia are bad, then regulating sexism and homophobia is good. If some regulation is good, then some authoritarianism is necessary to facilitate racial and sexual equality and personal freedom. The only difference is, whose authoritarianism?

My two scores some years ago, after taking the test a couple of years apart, were (0, -1) and I think (-½, 0) (not certain of that second one, but it was something almost dead-center like that, on just one axis deviating from 0,0 only negligeably and toward the “more-left-wing” side). I just took it again, scoring minus 2.25 on the economic left-right axis, and minus 1.03 on the social libertarian/authoritarian axis: (-2.25, -1.03). About a third of the questions were too simplistic to reflect the views of the person trying in good faith to answer them, and that’s the main reason this test overall is idiotic. Incidentally, Barbi, I’m considered “a racist, fascist, authoritarian, and totalitarian” in your clueless Barbie Doll world, yet on that test I keep scoring dead-center or a little “left” of center.

Race is a myth. I will assume that racism is an example of mythic polarity (despite the fact that we are all “racist” to a degree). To evade the authoritarian stamp one must advocate a soft, social form of regulation. An appeal to higher consciousness is one example of social regulation. Social regulation from the pleasant, well-paying (with benefits!) institutional platform of academia is a tad hypocritical, especially when such a platform is promoted, supported, and protected by the “good” authoritarianism of the State.

... I would suggest that you perhaps try to be more inclusive and worldcentric while maintaining your ethic interests and identities.

Yeah, just like blacks do towards whites in places such as Detroit for instance? Hell, blacks can’t even stand to live amongst each other. That’s why they are fleeing in droves from Detroit to live with whites in the suburbs (and bringing along with them their social pathologies, I might add!). And who or what is protecting the majority (whites) from the tyrany of the non-white minorities? Everywhere large numbers of Negroes reside, living conditions for whites are untenable. Have you checked the statistics on interracial crime—especially black-male on white-female rape—in the U.S.A. lately? Can you explain, with a straight face, why Negroes commit so much violent crime?

Today, the problem of interracial conflict originates directly between the ears of non-whites ... much of it is agitated and encouraged by certain Jews and their slimy obsequious “white-liberal” brainwashed servants.

Barbieplease: “Any nation or society that imposes such monolithic rules or permits such intolerant practices on any level—whether in the private sector or in the public—operates from a lower center of gravity, in terms of spiritual evolution or degree of consciousness.”

Barbie, what are your views on the connection between heredity and intelligence? Further, if good evidence exists that intelligence is preponderantly genetic and that there is a genetic ceiling on an individuals intelligence which he/she can reach with the necessary environmental stimulation but beyond which he/she cannot pass what are the implications of that for achieving a higher degree of “spiritual evolution or degree of consciousness”? To put it more pointedly, if “monolithic rules” need to be imposed on any “nation or society” to keep them from “imposing such monolithic rules” on any “nation or society” that trend it towards “operat[ing] from a lower center of gravity, in terms of spiritual evolution or degree of consciousness” then why not also impose “monolithic rules” to stave off dysgenic breeding practices and, further, implement compulsory eugenic breeding practices so we can all achieve a higher level of “spiritual evolution or degree of consciousness”?

Hey, it works with dogs, so why not give it a shot?

Or maybe we should all do what Timothy Leary suggested and “get high, man!”

So “barbie” would impose world-wide prohibitions against *whatever* because barbie has laid out *whatever* as part of some pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious framework that defines morality or “evolutionary advancement” or *whatever* and requires people to submit to her authority or else they are “authoritarian” hence *whatever*...

Barbieplease: “All of these forms of consciousness are pre-modern traditional realizations concerning mythic-membership and belongingness to an authoritarian monolothic society or nation.”

There is, demonstrably, degrees of genetic relatedness. Believing that it is doesn’t change it and believing that it isn’t so doesn’t change it. If that is how “membership” is defined there is nothing “mythic” about it.

So “fascis[m]” ‘bad’. But why fascism ‘bad’? Because it keeps us from achieving a higher “spiritual evolution or degree of ...,” yeah, yeah, I got all that. But what makes all that ‘good’? Is it human happiness? The happiness of the greatest number? Utilitarianism? Or is it just to rearrange the world, by force if need be, to make the world a safe and fun place to be for gays? What if the people don’t want to buy your brand? What if the people are happy the way they are? You, me, we, all of us, have got to ‘re-educate’ them so they can achieve ever more of the stuff that happiness is made of? Sounds kinda like “fascis[m]” to me.

“On the other hand, you make a distinction between Jews and European. Perhaps you are not referring to continental identity but to ethnic differences.”

You are floating around in the miasma of your own verbiage. What precisely are Jews in the most concrete terms? They are a genetically distinct group, with slight European admixture, that migrated into Europe from the Middle East thousands of years ago. In other words, they are what they claim to be. They are not “Europeans” in the sense that Whites are not “Native Americans” (i.e., Amerindians).

“If your particular ethic European rights and interests do not infringe upon the rights and civil liberties of Jews, I see no problem with these odd interests of yours.”

In what way do “ethnic European rights” exist, in theory or practice, if not pursued collectively?

Jews act collectively to undermine our “ethnic European rights.” Do you oppose this? If so, would you support us in putting a stop to it? What if several million of us get together to form our own nation and we don’t want Jews residing within? Is that within our rights? If not, to be consistent, I guess you support disbanding the state of Israel?

It’s muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as “extreme right”. The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It’s in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP’s real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear.

They have it backwards. Most people want a stop to immigration. The criminal policy of race replacement is only supported by a small minority. If words have any meaning, it is the small criminal minority that should be called extremist.

And the reason the BNP does not get more votes is not disagreement over the question of immigration.

Barbi it’s time to ask your race. What is it? (Your photo identifies you as, I’d say, either Mexican or Oriental; in any case non-white, wherefore your ideas are in no way original, but utterly predictable: as a non-white you’re merely tooting your own horn to the disadvantage of whites.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 03:02 PM | #

Race? That is an interesting question. I am acategorical in nature. I don’t classify myself as “non-white”; I prefer to be called half-white and half-Japanese. So maybe I am partially white so am half-way original instead of no way. At any rate, it would be silly of me to try to disadvantage whites because my father is white so it would be altogether self-defeating or disingenuous to try to deny, defeat, or disadvantage 50% of “myself.”

But even if I were 100% pure “white,” would that in itself make my ideas more original?

I arrived at this site randomly after googling “Political Compass.” I took the post above at face-value without any preconceived notions as to purpose of the post, author, members, or purpose of the site beyond correct analysis of the political model under question. My only purpose was to learn about the possible shortcomings or limitations of the Political Compass, the political model under question. I found the post and many of the comments interesting or intriguing. I did find it strange that in spite of much commentary, no one disputed the premises or conclusions of the argument itself, which I found to be interesting but somewhat flawed and deficient.

I didn’t actually notice that this was a special interest site, genetic interest site, or white interest site (or whatever it is called…sorry if I got the “name wrong”) until my second post and after clicking on some links off to the side. And while I did not agree with the articles nor quite understand the purpose of this site, I would think that its authors and members are open enough to welcome the critque or feedback of independent thinkers who wandered here by accident and totally randomly. At any rate, I thought I’d speak on my behalf as a half-asian, half-white person considering that some of the comments were in relation to me and considering that it is a site devoted to white interests. I am half-white, after all.

Even after reading the site’s stated purposes or aims, I’ve no interest in taking a moral high-ground, “tooting my own horn,” disputing the site’s aims, changing anyone, making personal attacks, nor in imposing my personal agenda (if any, beyond learning and discussion), beyond critical, thoughtful, and objective analysis of the political model under question, the political compass. And correct interpretation of it based on various scales, the topic of this post.

But as to your question of “race,” my father, who is caucasian American, is descended from the Mayflower on his American father’s side. His father, my grandfather, was an officer in the U.S. Navy. His mother, my grandmother, was a war bride from Germany. The two married in Europe during WWI and settled down in the Minnesota, where my father was born. Insofar as ancestry and origin, my father is a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christian American with English/German descent.

His military career took him to Korea and Japan where he met my mother, who is Japanese and Buddhist. She claims to be descended from the Rising Sun (the national symbol of Japan), the ancestral goddess of Japan. She also claims to be distantly related to the Mongol invaders and to Genghis Khan. I was born in Japan and moved to the United States when I was five. My first language was Japanese.

I take pride in both my white heritage, mythical heritage, and my oriental heritage.

Nevertheless, in spite of claims to both ethnic identities and taking pride in both, I am often treated as a “foreigner” or outsider wherever I go, whether in the United States or in Japan. I’m not a native-born American citizen and there are obviously no populations of half-white and half-Japanese people with whom to “bond” with ethnically or assimilate in as a group. So I can’t take full kinship or complete identity in any “race” or nationality. Not that I would even want to if it were available because I value more my freedom, humanity, spirituality, and individuality moreso than in identifying solely with any local or ethnic identities.

I actually take pride in my multi-nationality and genetic heterogeneity. It is considered unique. Especially in the Deep South where I currently live, which is rural, highy patriotic, and racially-divided along sharp racial lines between “black” and “white” due to its long history of segregation. I prefer novelty and uniqueness over that of belongingness and confinement to any dogma, creed, or ethnic identity although I do not impose my personal preferences to others who do not share my perspectives or who may need these ethnic identities for a sense of belongingness, validation, personal identity, or security. Nor can I even claim full kinship or identity with people when I visit Japan, which has a history of isolationism and is comprised of people who are both genetically, culturally, and socio-economically homogenous (Japan’s wealth is more evenly distributed among its citizens and has the highest percentage of middle-class citizens than any other nation in the world). It is also somewhat xenophobic—at least among the older generations.

But whether in Japan, United States, or elsewhere, these are only my personal experiences with natives who operate from a center of gravity called ethnocentric. Yet even among these people, I am generally well-received and accepted due to my physical appearance, which is described as “exotic,” “attractive,” “kawai,” or even sometimes, “very striking” compared to those who are racially or genetically more homogenous or identical to each other than to myself. On the other hand, those who are less ethnocentric and more worldcentric (and thus, not quite as shallow or simplistic as “ethnocentric”) tend not to confuse me with a Barbie doll once they know me and realize that it isn’t the appearance that sets me apart from others but, rather, my overall intellectual superiority over others that sets me apart.

Nor do I identify myself fully with gender or femininity although I’m female and straight. The name, “barbiplease” is a variant of my first name, “Barbara,” which is Greek for “barbarian” (foreigner). Which I disown not because of its meaning but for aesthetic reasons only; as it sounds too homely or “old” for me. “Barbiplease” is preferable although it may sound shallow or superficial to others who may see me on the surface and associate the name with Barbie Dolls. However, I would say that “barbiplease” has less to do with “Barbie Doll” than with the fact that I look “foreign” in the eyes of most natives. So the name is obviously deceptive; as I’m considerably smarter than a Barbie Doll.

As to whether this intellectual superiority is a result of genes, environment, autodidactic and world-class education or all four is really difficult for me to determine. I tend to think it is largely “genetic” because my son, who was raised apart from me by his white paternal grandparents, is also highly cerebral and very good-looking in appearance. And although he “passes” more as “white” than myself and is 3/4 white, he takes extreme pride in his Japanese heritage. In fact, he categorizes himself as “asian” on his Myspace and plans to go to Japan next year as a foreign exchange student. I think it is a “thing” for Generations Y and Z in particular to prefer being multi-ethnic or multi-racial than racially “pure.” I realize I am saying things that are possibly taboo or difficult to accept or face for many here yet this is one of the many advantages of being free. Which is a dispassionate acceptance of reality and truth whatever it may be. In this case, being that the demographics prove that more and more people are multi-ethnic and are embracing multi-ethnicity irrespective of race.

So it isn’t an abberation that’s confined to just “my kind” (whomever that may be, besides myself and my son). And, he graduated last year as class valedictorian. And he happens to be the only child and grandchild on his white father’s and white paternal grandparents’ side to graduate with honors or to go to college. They attribute his smarts to “me.”

This is in spite of being racially “different,” “other,” or “mixed” (bi-racial or mult-ethnic). And with respect to just myself, it is despite my lack of a shared creation myth or religious affiliation (mythocentric), firm national identity (nationcentric), or solid gender identity (biocentric or egocentric) with which to be immersed in as my sole identity. I must therefore, by necessity, ground my identity in worldcentric and kosmocentric values and identities. I would therefore consider myself in truth, a cosmopolite (worldcentric), that is, a citizen of the world who is also kosmocentric. Those who are worldcentric regard me as a fellow human being (worldcentric) whereas those who are kosmocentric regard me as a spiritual being and a universal kindred spirit (kosmocentric): thus, labels such as nationality, religion, race, or gender are not particularly useful for me nor are they especially insightful or revealing to others in regard to me who wish to identify, classify, and label me into some neat little “category” of human. I can identify with all of these labels but am not confined to any of them exclusively. It is actually more liberating to be spiritual, ego-free, time-free, acategorical, and space-free (amaterial) than to be spatially-fixed or confined to any lesser teaching or identity, although I do not reject any of these and certainly wouldn’t impose my own identity or values upon any other. Instead, I transcend them and include and honor them all in a spiritual embrace of tolerance and agape-love in a universal nested holons of being and sentience. Even those who regard me with contempt as foreign or as enemy are welcome in this embrace.

Furthermore, kosmocentric is a non-physical spiritual identity which transcends and includes all previous identities but in itself posseses no physical property nor locality in terms of physical space, that is, three-dimensional space of worldcentric identity.

I hope that I have therefore answered your question satisfactorily concerning race or identity. Feel free to ask any other should you have any questions or concerns.

Fine, you reject certain categories, including race, gender, and nation — even time and space, apparently. We don’t. Not only do we acknowledge race and nation, we respect them, like them, and do not wish to see their deliberate destruction through governmental overriding of the people’s natural preference for having and keeping them.

In regard to your “kosmocentric” and “worldcentric” identities you say lots of things like this:

“I would therefore consider myself in truth, a cosmopolite (worldcentric), that is, a citizen of the world who is also kosmocentric. [...] labels such as nationality, religion, race, or gender are not particularly useful for me nor are they especially insightful or revealing to others in regard to me who wish to identify, classify, and label me into some neat little ‘category’ of human. I can identify with all of these labels but am not confined to any of them exclusively. It is actually more liberating to be spiritual, ego-free, time-free, acategorical, and space-free (amaterial) than to be spatially-fixed or confined to any lesser teaching or identity [...] I transcend them and include and honor them all in a spiritual embrace of tolerance and agape-love in a universal nested holons of being and sentience.”

But where are you living? You’re living In the U.S. which, because of its particular racial history for one essential part, has created the wherewithal for you to adopt these attitudes of yours toward reality. You couldn’t do that living in Sub-Saharan Africa, precisely because of race, for one thing. You’re like a toddler who rejects the category of “parents”, thinking that particular “category” ties him down, confines him, suffocates him, limits him. He doesn’t realize that “no parents” for him means no existence. Which highlights, in your case, your hypocrisy, shallowness, and status as what’s known as a free rider. A free-rider in simplest terms is someone who takes all, and gives nothing. (You know what hypocrisy and shallowness are, I assume.)

Grow up. At the moment you are exactly what James Bowery surmised you were a few comments above.

Fred, can’t you see you’re in the presence of some sort of miracle creature? An hermaphroditic super being with the ability to bend space and time. Quite amazing.

Really though, I suspect the reality is that barbiplease is simply a half-breed with identity issues, who sees it as in her interest to break down the identity of others so as to better fit in, and she surely exists in a privileged, upper middle class world where she is insulated from the worst effects of nation wrecking.

That is what you are. It is a sign of maturity and strength to admit the truth and openly proclaim it.

“But even if I were 100% pure “white,” would that in itself make my ideas more original?”

No, nor would it make them more correct. There is nothing in your ideas or mode of thinking that “original,” just a sloppy mixture of cultural Marxism, expressive individualism, mysticism and rank narcissism. If the gold standard is what is True, what is Good, and what is Beautiful I say you have not only missed the bull’s-eye but the target.

“My only purpose was to learn about the possible shortcomings or limitations of the Political Compass, the political model under question.”

No, that may have been your initial purpose, but certainly not your only purpose. What drives you is a need born of insecurity to rationalize and validate your own existence, and, a narcissistic ‘will to power’ to be adored for you self-perceived ‘exceptionalism’ and to remake the world to accommodate same.

For example: “Yet even among these people, I am generally well-received and accepted due to my physical appearance, which is described as “exotic,” “attractive,” “kawai,” or even sometimes, “very striking”...”

“...tend not to confuse me with a Barbie doll once they know me and realize that it isn’t the appearance that sets me apart from others but, rather, my overall intellectual superiority over others that sets me apart.” [Check out Christopher Lasch’s Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations for a good dissection of the link between narcissism and irony; hint: it is to hide one’s self, and to belittle and control others]

“Any nation or society that imposes such monolithic rules or permits such intolerant practices on any level—whether in the private sector or in the public—operates from a lower center of gravity, in terms of spiritual evolution or degree of consciousness.”

I rest my case.

“As to whether this intellectual superiority is a result of genes, environment, autodidactic and world-class education or all four is really difficult for me to determine.”

LOL! My mother was a National Merit Scholar and has a genius level IQ. She choose to be a house wife. My father is an average Joe. I was born working-class and still am. So what?

Yup, say what you gotta say to get in there. Waste of time. It’s a bum lay. Why? Cold fish.]

“Nor can I even claim full kinship or identity with people when I visit Japan,”

Yet they can and do.

“...which has a history of isolationism and is comprised of people who are both genetically, culturally, and socio-economically homogenous…”

Yup, and what a glory it is.

“(Japan’s wealth is more evenly distributed among its citizens and has the highest percentage of middle-class citizens than any other nation in the world).”

And there is the content of said glory. Described by you above is the reason for said glory. There is their happiness. There is their Love. If what you prescribe were universalized it would take their Love away from them. You say higher “degree of consciousness” I say monstrosity. That is the purpose of this website. That is the very meaning of the lives of people who think as we. That is why we fight. So that this Love will never end.

“Furthermore, kosmocentric is a non-physical spiritual identity which transcends and includes all previous identities but in itself posseses no physical property nor locality in terms of physical space, that is, three-dimensional space of worldcentric identity.”

There is no ‘treasure in Heaven’. There are no other worlds but this and this life is all we have. That is what makes our Love the more precious. And the sacrifices, even unto death to save our people from destruction, the more heroic.

”[...] when I visit Japan, [...] comprised of people who are genetically, culturally, and socio-economically homogenous… (Japan’s wealth is more evenly distributed among its citizens and has the highest percentage of middle-class citizens than any other nation in the world).” (—Barbi)

Yup, and what a glory it is [for Japan and the Japanese people]. And there is the content of said glory. Described by you above is the reason for said glory. There is their happiness. There is their Love. If what you prescribe were universalized it would take their Love away from them. You say higher “degree of consciousness,” I say monstrosity. That is the purpose of this website. That is the very meaning of the lives of people who think as we. That is why we fight. So that this Love will never end. (—Captainchaos)

Fine, you reject certain categories, including race, gender, and nation — even time and space, apparently. We don’t. Not only do we acknowledge race and nation, we respect them, like them, and do not wish to see their deliberate destruction through governmental overriding of the people’s natural preference for having and keeping them.

You misunderstood me. I don’t reject any category. I transcend and include every category of being down to every cell, molecule, quark, and pre-quark of being and all the way down. In addition to all the way “up,” in being human and spirit. To reject any of these categories or any category in between would be to reject a “piece” of myself.

I also do not reject other nations’ sovereignty and am not so stupid to think that it is even possible at the time to have a one person, one-vote democracy world governemtn or “one world order.”

I respect every category including race, gender, and nation. I take pride in all of these things and identify with them all but don’t care to confine myself exclusively to these itty bitty categories and physical things. Spirit is too vast to be compartmentalized into some lesser category or teaching. I realize, furthermore, that my aperspectivity is not embraced by 95% of the world. People are where they are and that is fine.

I respect other people’s wishes to be classified into whatever category of human they like. I think it is primarily for a sense of self-security or group-identity and that is fine. Yet I would hope that others can also respect that I don’t quite fit into any of these traditional categories and am possibly rejected by many people and categories. For this reason, and for others—I must by necessity identify with spirit and in being human. Whereas you may identify most fully with being white and European, I identify with these categories too but but cannot fully because of my acategorical nature (that is, mixed heritage and multinationality and being treated like a “foreigner” where ever I go). I hope you can understand that it is less confusing for myself and for others if I identify first and foremost with being human and spirit. I don’t impose that on others, of course; but only wish that others would realize that we are kindred spirit in that regard—that we are all human and spirit.

In regard to your “kosmocentric” and “worldcentric” identities you say lots of things like this:

“I would therefore consider myself in truth, a cosmopolite (worldcentric), that is, a citizen of the world who is also kosmocentric. [...] labels such as nationality, religion, race, or gender are not particularly useful for me nor are they especially insightful or revealing to others in regard to me who wish to identify, classify, and label me into some neat little ‘category’ of human. I can identify with all of these labels but am not confined to any of them exclusively. It is actually more liberating to be spiritual, ego-free, time-free, acategorical, and space-free (amaterial) than to be spatially-fixed or confined to any lesser teaching or identity [...] I transcend them and include and honor them all in a spiritual embrace of tolerance and agape-love in a universal nested holons of being and sentience.”

But where are you living? You’re living In the U.S. which, because of its particular racial history for one essential part, has created the wherewithal for you to adopt these attitudes of yours toward reality. You couldn’t do that living in Sub-Saharan Africa, precisely because of race, for one thing. You’re like a toddler who rejects the category of “parents”, thinking that particular “category” ties him down, confines him, suffocates him, limits him. He doesn’t realize that “no parents” for him means no existence. Which highlights, in your case, your hypocrisy, shallowness, and status as what’s known as a free rider. A free-rider in simplest terms is someone who takes all, and gives nothing. (You know what hypocrisy and shallowness are, I assume.)

This again appears to be based on the assumption that by “freedom,” I “reject” some fundamental category of being (in this case, parents or family). Of course I am dependent to some degree on family and nation but it is liberating to be acategorical as well. There are some, for example, in the United States, who say, “MY country, right or wrong!” in defense of George Bush in spite of the fact that he has put this country in a mess, such as the futile wars we may never get out of and putting us in an $11 trillion dollar deficit to give tax cuts to the rich that my future generations will have to pay for. To me, such people are not “free.” They THINK they are free but are not “free” because they are enslaved in terms of consciousness to blind patriotism to a president who harms my future generations. Some people think they must have lots of money and things. In a very real sense, they are enslaved to these things. I don’t need very much beyond what it takes to get by because I am free in terms of greed. This is what I mean when I say “free.”

I would possibly be rejected in Sub-Saharan Africa and in many other parts of the world because I don’t look the same as most other people. Why then is it wrong to identify with identifying with being a fellow human being or fellow spirit? Why can’t I identify with being human and spirit in Sub-Saharan Africa? I don’t think that there is any other way for me to “fit in” down there or anywhere (in truth) aside from claiming that I am human—should people laugh at the concept of spirituality.

The hypocrisy and “free-rider” thing I don’t get at all. It must be based on the mistaken notion that I “reject” some category of being out of spite or narcissism—which I do not. Nor am I a “free-rider” because I do whatever I can to better myself and the world, for whatever my contributions are worth, through self-education and through a variety of interest (primarily, music and writing). Which are done all for free.

I make $11,000 per year from Social Security Disability which places me just above the poverty line due to Asperger Syndrome. Which may well be a genetic trait due to my heterogeneity yet something I feel I should have because there needs to be some people who are like Albert Einstein, Chancy Gardener, and Sir Issac Newton—who also have Asperger. Which comes with many gifts and with many many hardships. I could have any guy I want to take care of me materially, but I feel that my work is more important at the current time of writing. Which has been the case for me for the past four years. Perhaps someday I will return to normal society and date but at the time, this is more important.

Your reading of human consciousness, drawn from this Jewish fellow’s writings, is fatally light-hearted and erroneous. Consciousness is not systematized in the deeply confused manner of his model - a sloppy melange, sort of mixing up interests, values, brain functions and the heirarchy of presence in a complicated binning system, and abusing the lot of them in the process.

Consciousness cannot be profitably discussed in that way. Its evolutionary function, its seating in the perpetuum mobile of thought, its intentionality (literally, attentionality), its oppositon to mechanicity as the normal human condition, its departing from that condition as a requirement for expansiveness ... these are useful ways of addressing consciousness. I urge you to be more, much more rigorous in the way you address it. At present, as CC said, you are displaying a gauche spiritual superiority that may charm the hell out of you but leaves more seasoned observers shaking their heads in sadness.

Likewise, your observations of freedom are very thin and intellectually unsatisfying. Freedom in the usual political sense consists largely in detachment from the dominant dictates of the day. No creature of the liberal zeitgeist is free if he has had to excise from himself his sense of nation, and imposes the same excision upon others on pain of the assassination of reputation and even imprisonment.

The beginnings of freedom in the spiritual sense consist in escape from mechanicity, even if it is only momentary (as it will certainly be). And mechanicity is the resting place of consciousness in all that is acquired psychically from life, from the first sensate moment onwards. Experience of this truth teaches that the need for moral superiority is a sure sign of spiritual slavery, not freedom.

If you do not know any of this you cannot properly discuss human consciousness, and you certainly cannot ascribe to your mechanistic self any freedom of the spirit.

Your reading of human consciousness, drawn from this Jewish fellow’s writings, is fatally light-hearted and erroneous. Consciousness is not systematized in the deeply confused manner of his model - a sloppy melange, sort of mixing up interests, values, brain functions and the heirarchy of presence in a complicated binning system, and abusing the lot of them in the process.

Which Jewish fellow do you mean? I appreciate Carl Sagan but I’m sure you mean some other. My understanding of consciousness has its origins in my mother’s Buddhism in the Far East, Western science, and psychology and humanities in the West. In addition, it draws from Whitehead, Rupert Sheldrake, William James, Piaget, Emerson, William James, Stan Grof, Aldous Huxley, neurodiversity studies, developmental psychology, and from studies and experiences on altered states of consciousness. At present, my primary influences are Jean Gebser, Ken Wilber, and Spiral Dynamics, all of whom offer an all-encompassing whole-theory Integral approach to consciousness studies. What is your background in consciousness-studies?

Unless you are familiar with an Integral approach, you are not really in a position to understand whether an Integral approach is inherently systematic or not. A systematization spatializes whatever it encompasses; hence the limitations of the The Political Compass to truly disclose degrees of consciousness beyond the worldcentric spatial realm of three-dimensional space. Thus, The Political Compass is useful so far as it goes—but it is nonetheless still a three-dimensional attempt to locate and confine one’s center of gravity to vectors or points or positions in space that are temporally and spatially frozen. So long as one’s center of gravity is worldcentric and below, it is generally a fairly accurate model for assessing one’s degree of consciousness from a political standpoint. However, because consciousness itself is composed of a variety of different lines of development as well (such as the cognitive line, the musical line, the athletic line, the emotional line, the artistic line, and so on—none of which are ever equal in terms of degree of strength or development in an individual person), there is only so much that a political compass can reliably measure.

Even so, the inadequacies of The Political Compass are very evident in that some of you scored at or near the 0,0 range. Even I could have surmised that based on my assessment of the original post above and then later, upon further reading to links off to the side, that your overall political center of gravity would indicate that you are more at the upper vertical range of authoritarianism/ethnocentrism than your scores would indicate. This, of course, does not refer to intellectual ability, musical ability, or so on. But only that in terms of the social dimension of the political compass, that you are primarily operating from a more ancient center of gravity known as ethnocentric.

I am not familiar enough with your political schools of thought to know how you rate economically on the horizontal line. My guess would be that most may endorse capitalism over that of communism on the upper-right quadrant; although absolute authoritarianism/fascism appears to be more a “top-center” or “center-right” position than an “upper-right” position so as to permit more governmental control and involvement over economic issues. Yet, in spite of its limitations, the test is still a vast improvement over the traditional one-dimensional horizontal line which fails to differentiate economic from social dimensions by placing everyone horizontally along degrees of “left” and “right” economic lines.

We live in a four-dimensional spatio-temporal world or possibly even in a higher 10-dimensional world (according to string theory): not in a temporally-frozen three-dimensional spatial world of our forefathers. Manifestations of the newest consciousness reflect this basic concern for time, having already conquered space in the Western European scientific objective world. Einstein’s theory is a manifestation of the newest consciousness in physics, although he himself from perhaps a theological or scientific standpoint appears to reject a great deal of his findings or the implications of twentieth-century physics.

What I gather from this conversation is that while most here do not necessarily object to biological evolution, most may strongly oppose the concept of spiritual (consciousness) evolution. Indicating that while you are highly evolved from an intellectual or cognitive standpoint, that you are not so evolved from a spiritual standpoint. In that sense you are very much like the multicultural postmodern pluralists that you so detest: as they too reject the idea of spiritual evolution and thus endorse a “flatland” ideology whereby differences in values are acknowledged but that none are perceived as any “better” or “higher” than the other for the sake of diversity. Postmodern pluralism is the virulent “mean green v-meme” that infects a great many academicians and intellectuals of today. It seems that a great many here endorse a sort of flatland ideology in spite of objecting to it.

In terms of spiritual evolution, fascism and racism on the whole are perceived from an Integral standpoint as lesser teachings that are lower on the evolutionary spiritual scale from that of worldcentric or Integral. Both biological or spiritual evolution are hierarchical arrangements that disclose that some forms of consciousness (from a spiritual standpoint) or some forms of organization or complexity (from a physical standpoint) are higher and more inclusive and more encompassing than others. For instance: egocentric is transcended and included within ethnocentric and ethnocentric is transcended and included within worldcentric and worldcentric is transcended and included within kosmocentric—but not vice-versa. In a similar manner, biological evolution reveals a hierarchical arrangement in that molecules are transcended and included within a cell and that cells are transcended and included within an organ and that organs are transcended and included within a physical body but not vice-versa. From a neurological standpoint, the reptilian complex or cerebellum is transcended and included in the limbic system and the limbic system is transcended and included in the cerebral cortex and not vice-versa. And it is the not vice-versa which establishes this hierarchy.

Consciousness cannot be profitably discussed in that way. Its evolutionary function, its seating in the perpetuum mobile of thought, its intentionality (literally, attentionality), its oppositon to mechanicity as the normal human condition, its departing from that condition as a requirement for expansiveness ... these are useful ways of addressing consciousness. I urge you to be more, much more rigorous in the way you address it. At present, as CC said, you are displaying a gauche spiritual superiority that may charm the hell out of you but leaves more seasoned observers shaking their heads in sadness.

“Mechanicity as the normal human condition”: please explain.

I do not oppose mechanistic thinking. Mechanistic thinking is necessary for intellectual or cognitive ability, so long as one is not confined to this realm exclusively.

You seem to suggest that mechanistic thinking involving rationality or logic is the normal human condition. 70% of the world population is at ethnocentric or below. Ethnocentric is a two-dimensional mythic dimension involving the psyche or soul moreso than the brain: that is, on inner contemplation (heart) or outer utterance (mouth) not so much as on thinking (brain) or measuring (eye) of the three-dimensional world of space to know basic mechanical operations. At any rate, mechanistic thinking is not the basic human condition: and while you may have a grasp for three-dimensional mechanistic thinking on a cognitive level, one’s basic human condition from a more fundamental aspect is more driven by the heart, mouth, or soul (mythically- or ethnocentrically-oriented) and by emotion, instincts, empathy, and on hearing or hearkening of the ear, stomach, or sexual organs (one-dimensional magic) than on mental rationality or logic.

An Integral aperspectival worldview may be perceived by many here as a threat to their worldview because it questions the very foundations of white superiority or white homogeneity or separateness, although it does not seek to impose this awareness on those who subscribe to this particular view. All of us are ethnocentric to some degree but some of us are stuck there. People are where they are, after all. And it is not my intent here to change you.

Likewise, your observations of freedom are very thin and intellectually unsatisfying. Freedom in the usual political sense consists largely in detachment from the dominant dictates of the day. No creature of the liberal zeitgeist is free if he has had to excise from himself his sense of nation, and imposes the same excision upon others on pain of the assassination of reputation and even imprisonment.

I’m sorry that your concept of freedom does not permit the worldcentric realization of egalitarian concepts of liberty and freedom for all people from 300 years ago. You are confined to a school of thought which does not permit you to have worldcentric realizations in the truest sence of the world. These were championed by the Modernist schools during the American and French Revolutions although possibly not grasped fully here.

Freedom is detachment from dominant dictates of the day. Whether from objective scientific materialistic dictates of the modernist three-dimensional world, from the pluralistic multicultural dictates of the postmodern three-dimensional world, or from the ethnocentric dictates of the pre-modern two-dimensional mythic world. I see your attachment as being largely dominated by ethnocentric concerns; hence, it is not true freedom.

The beginnings of freedom in the spiritual sense consist in escape from mechanicity, even if it is only momentary (as it will certainly be). And mechanicity is the resting place of consciousness in all that is acquired psychically from life, from the first sensate moment onwards. Experience of this truth teaches that the need for moral superiority is a sure sign of spiritual slavery, not freedom.

There are certain moral truths which are recognized as being morally superior to others. From an ethnocentric premodern standpoint, it is that “we belong” to special group of chosen people who are equal to each other in some basic sense. From a nationcentric modernist standpoint, it is that “all men are created equal.” From a worldcentric postmodern perspective, it is that “all humans are created equal irrespective of race, religion, gender, creed, ethnicity,” and so on. You seem to embrace a strange combination of ethocentric and postmodern values in that you subscribe to some form of racial superiority or racial homogeneity theory (ethnocentric) but that moral superiority is not permitted (pluralistic).

If you do not know any of this you cannot properly discuss human consciousness, and you certainly cannot ascribe to your mechanistic self any freedom of the spirit.

The question is: can you properly discuss consciousness. And if so, do you understsand it from an evolutionary standpoint. What is your background in consciousness studies?

If you do not believe in spiritual evolution but only biological, then you are confined to a mechanistic world of space. It will be worldcentric. You will be confined to this world of space and material objects such that if you were deprived of these things, you will feel that you are no longer free. If you are nationcentric or mythocentric rather than worldcentric you may be so immersed in the myths of the people of your kind so as to be unable to think critically or independently as an individual from an objective or pluralistic standpoint or operate on a level independently of these people of your kind. The key to freedom is embracing and acknowledging these various levels of being but not being confined exclusively to them.

Carl Sagan says that matter so constituted as man (i.e., that it produces consciousness) is the way in which the universe/multiverse is aware of itself. He was a materialist.

“...Aldous Huxley…”

“God is, but at the same time God also is not. The Universe is governed by blind chance and at the same time by a providence with ethical preoccupations. Suffering is gratuitous and pointless, but also valuable and necessary. The universe is an imbecile sadist, but also, simultaneously, the most benevolent of parents. Everything is rigidly predetermined, but the will is perfectly free. This list of contradictions could be lengthened so as to include all problems that have ever vexed the philosopher and the theologian.” - Aldous Huxley

In other words, all these things may be manifest or at least ‘perceived’ as such in the universe/multiverse, but there is no imperative, central thrust woven into the fabric of the universe or within life to ever more and higher forms of complexity, understanding, freedom, love, consciousness and power. The universe simply doesn’t give a damn. It can’t. Any imperative you feel to move in that direction is your own, and those you share it with, there is nothing auspicious or highly sanctioned about it.

“So long as one’s center of gravity is worldcentric and below, it is generally a fairly accurate model for assessing one’s degree of consciousness from a political standpoint.”

Do you want to go live on Mars? Earth is just fine for me. I’ll bet you like living in a house too. That means maintenance of said. That means focus (yes, narrowing one’s consciousness) on maintenance of said - to the degree necessary to free one’s self for other pursuits that without a house one could not do or less ably do.

“(such as the cognitive line, the musical line, the athletic line, the emotional line, the artistic line, and so on—none of which are ever equal in terms of degree of strength or development in an individual person)”

Nor are these “equal in terms of degree of strength or development” among races.

“We live in a four-dimensional spatio-temporal world or possibly even in a higher 10-dimensional world (according to string theory): not in a temporally-frozen three-dimensional spatial world of our forefathers. Manifestations of the newest consciousness reflect this basic concern for time, having already conquered space in the Western European scientific objective world.”

Really? No shit? Maybe that’s why we are in such a tizzy, because, current trends persisting IN TIME our people will BE ANNIHILATED.

“Both biological or spiritual evolution are hierarchical arrangements that disclose that some forms of consciousness (from a spiritual standpoint) or some forms of organization or complexity (from a physical standpoint) are higher and more inclusive and more encompassing than others.”

Yet the lower does not always yield to the higher. No nice comfy house, no government check, and you can’t devote your time and energy to your spiritual pursuits; no responsible, sustainable environmentalism vis-a-vis earth and Carl Sagan can’t investigate the universe/multiverse; and, if the White race goes extinct or is mongrelized out of existence, no more spiritual development. Do you honestly believe that if we let down our primitive, ethnocentric guard and just go with the flow to one brown world any of the achievements of Western Man will endure? Do you honestly believe there is no difference between Bach and a nigger? And if we all miscegenate with niggers there will be any more Bachs? LOL!

No, the hierarchy STANDS OR FALLS upon the solidity of its base. The basis of Bach is the White gene-pool.

As Nietzsche says:

“There is only nobility of birth, only nobility of blood. When one speaks of “aristocrats of the spirit,” reasons are usually not lacking for concealing something. As is well known, it is a favorite term among ambitious Jews. For spirit alone does not make noble. Rather, there must be something to ennoble the spirit. What then is required? Blood.”

I see your attachment as being largely dominated by ethnocentric concerns; hence, it is not true freedom.

Something which might give you some perspective on what you see as “dominating the attachment” of White Nationalists (more aptly White Survivalists) is that we perceive, right or wrong, that there has been been by elites, (who judging from their available ideological writings are complete materialists), a systematic effort, ongoing for many years and markedly increased of late, to eradicate our kind and that “multiculturalism” (for white lands only) is part of that effort. Such concerns “dominate our attachment” the same way saving your children would if they were (or you thought they were, allowing that you may not agree with our assessment) trapped inside a burning house. I shouldn’t think in such a situation you’d be spending much of your mental energy “contemplating the cosmos”.

“Such concerns ‘dominate our attachment’ the same way saving your children would if they were [...] trapped inside a burning house. I shouldn’t think in such a situation you’d be spending much of your mental energy ‘contemplating the cosmos.’ “ (—John)

John’s excellent rejoinder illustrates how Barbi’s blood connection to her son tethers her to the same worldly realities we recognize, notwithstanding all her spacy-floaty feelings of detachment therefrom.

If you believe in evolution it must be random, not predetermined. Spiritual evolution, as shaped by Wilber, must deny Darwin and randomness in order to sustain itself. Otherwise the randomness of evolutionary behaviour will make “spiritual evolution” (which in reality cannot exist outside the biological) unpredictable. And sure enough that is exactly what Wilber does.

“KW: ...The standard neo-Darwinian explanation of chance mutation and natural selection - very few theorists believe this anymore. Evolution clearly operates in part by natural selection, but this process simply selects those transformations that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody understands.

Q. For example?

KW: Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg—a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing—you can’t run and you can’t fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal—also these same mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex, and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and have offspring with real functional wings.

Talk about mind-boggling. This in infinitely, absolutely, utterly mind-boggling. Random mutations cannot even begin to explain this….But once this incredible transformation has occurred, then natural selection will indeed select the better wings from the less workable wings—but the wings themselves? Nobody has a clue.

This guy sounds like Lawrence Auster.

Now, our Darwinian friends never tire of speculating about how a long succession of itsy bitsy mutations, each one somehow “adaptive” by itself, could accumulate into an extremely complex organ, such as the bacterium flagellum or the eye, in which a vast number of parts work perfectly together. But I don’t think that even the Darwinians would have the chutzpah to postulate that random mutations could occur in an externally fertilizing amphibian species that simultaneously produced a mutated male and a mutated female with mutually complementary reproductive organs suited for internal fertilization, the result being a new, proto-reptile species that reproduces by sexual intercourse.

This is not just something that is extremely, astronomically unlikely. It is inherently impossible. The Darwinian theory of evolution cannot, even by the wildest speculation, account for reproduction by sexual intercourse.

Only to discover;

Most birds have simple genitalia; males lack external genitalia and females have simple vaginas. However, male waterfowl have a phallus whose length (1.5–>40 cm) and morphological elaborations vary among species and are positively correlated with the frequency of forced extra-pair copulations among waterfowl species. Here we report morphological complexity in female genital morphology in waterfowl and describe variation vaginal morphology that is unprecedented in birds. This variation comprises two anatomical novelties: (i) dead end sacs, and (ii) clockwise coils. These vaginal structures appear to function to exclude the intromission of the counter-clockwise spiralling male phallus without female cooperation. A phylogenetically controlled comparative analysis of 16 waterfowl species shows that the degree of vaginal elaboration is positively correlated with phallus length, demonstrating that female morphological complexity has co-evolved with male phallus length. Intersexual selection is most likely responsible for the observed coevolution, although identifying the specific mechanism is difficult. Our results suggest that females have evolved a cryptic anatomical mechanism of choice in response to forced extra-pair copulations.

Carl Sagan says that matter so constituted as man (i.e., that it produces consciousness) is the way in which the universe/multiverse is aware of itself. He was a materialist.

I appreciate Carl Sagan’s contributions to science through his popular writings (Broca’s Brain) and through his Cosmos series. Were it not for him, I wouldn’t have developed such a keen interest in the universe and for evolution at such a young age.

This is in spite of his fanatic devotion to the religion of scientism, which compels him to believe that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life. This is patently absurd, of course; but he is a product of his times: scientific materialism and the deficient phase of the mental-rational structure of consciousness.

I don’t hold that against him and I appreciate his contributions to the world nonetheless. Which were to science and to no other field. We can’t be experts at “everything,” after all.

“...Aldous Huxley…”

“God is, but at the same time God also is not. The Universe is governed by blind chance and at the same time by a providence with ethical preoccupations. Suffering is gratuitous and pointless, but also valuable and necessary. The universe is an imbecile sadist, but also, simultaneously, the most benevolent of parents. Everything is rigidly predetermined, but the will is perfectly free. This list of contradictions could be lengthened so as to include all problems that have ever vexed the philosopher and the theologian.” - Aldous Huxley

In other words, all these things may be manifest or at least ‘perceived’ as such in the universe/multiverse, but there is no imperative, central thrust woven into the fabric of the universe or within life to ever more and higher forms of complexity, understanding, freedom, love, consciousness and power. The universe simply doesn’t give a damn. It can’t. Any imperative you feel to move in that direction is your own, and those you share it with, there is nothing auspicious or highly sanctioned about it.

Your quote is from a novel, Brave New World (1931). Based on his fictional work, you surmise that Huxley himself must be a proponent of scientific materialism or rigid determinism to try to bolster your case.

The Newtonian physics and mechanistic thinking that you embrace went out in the early 20th century. Even among scientists.

You do not understand physics nor Huxley so let me help you out there:

LATER works by Huxley….(NONFICTION)

The man who comes back through the Door in the Wall will never be quite the same as the man who went out. He will be wiser but less sure, happier but less self-satisfied, humbler in acknowledging his ignorance yet better equipped to understand the relationship of words to things, of systematic reasoning to the unfathomable mystery which it tries, forever vainly, to comprehend. (Huxley, 1954)

The Perennial Philosophy is a 1945 book by Aldous Huxley, published by Chatto & Windus in the UK, and by Harper & Row in the US.

According to Huxley, the perennial philosophy is: “the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being; the thing is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of the perennial philosophy may be found among the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions” (The Perennial Philosophy, p. vii).

The Doors of Perception is a 1954 book by Aldous Huxley detailing his experiences when taking mescaline.

“Is it agreeable?” somebody asked.

“Neither agreeable nor disagreeable,” I answered. “it just is.” Istigkeit - wasn’t that the word Meister Eckhart liked to use? “Is-ness.” The Being of Platonic philosophy - except that Plato seems to have made the enormous, the grotesque mistake of separating Being from becoming and identifying it with the mathematical abstraction of the Idea. He could never, poor fellow, have seen a bunch of flowers shining with their own inner light and all but quivering under the pressure of the significance with which they were charged; could never have perceived that what rose and iris and carnation so intensely signified was nothing more, and nothing less, than what they were - a transience that was yet eternal life, a perpetual perishing that was at the same time pure Being, a bundle of minute, unique particulars in which, by some unspeakable and yet self-evident paradox, was to be seen the divine source of all existence. (page 4-5)

The title comes from William Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell:

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern.”

Heaven and Hell is a philosophical work by Aldous Huxley, published in 1956. The title is derived from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell by William Blake. The essay discusses the relationship between bright, colorful objects, geometric designs, psychoactives, art, and profound experience. The reference to Heaven and Hell brings out the two possible sides of mystical experience. When one opens the doors of perception one can experience both extremes. But the import of the essay does not confine itself to a further explication of mystical experience (one that continues from the earlier essay, The Doors of Perception), but it points us to the reality that can be Heaven and Hell in ordinary lived experience. The text is usually published in a volume combined with Huxley’s companion work The Doors of Perception.

Brave New World Revisited (Harper & Row (US) 1958, Chatto & Windus (UK) 1959[9]), written by Huxley almost thirty years after Brave New World, was a non-fiction work in which Huxley considered whether the world had moved toward or away from his vision of the future from the 1930s. [...] Brave New World Revisited is different in tone due to Huxley’s evolving thought, as well as his conversion to Vedanta in the interim between the two books.

“So long as one’s center of gravity is worldcentric and below, it is generally a fairly accurate model for assessing one’s degree of consciousness from a political standpoint.”

Do you want to go live on Mars? Earth is just fine for me. I’ll bet you like living in a house too. That means maintenance of said. That means focus (yes, narrowing one’s consciousness) on maintenance of said - to the degree necessary to free one’s self for other pursuits that without a house one could not do or less ably do.

We all love the planet earth which is our primary concern. At least, for some of us. So we’re all focused on the earth and on global sustainability. At least, some of us. The question is, are you. Or are you so focused on home repair & improvement that the earth and the rest of humanity are no concern of yours?

When your focus is narrowed below the level of worldcentric, you are operating from a level of consciousness that is incapable of embracing ecological concerns or concerns for the rest of humanity outside of your own personal or ethnic concerns.

The earth is home for higher sentience such as kosmocentric in addition to home for lower sentience such as worldcentric and below. However, it is the destruction caused by worldcentric and ethnocentric which are ultimately making this planet uninhabitable for future generations.

You think “kosmocentric” does not focus on the earth because you think it means “outer space” or “extraterrestrial.” And that “worldcentric” means “more focused on the earth” because it sounds like “world” instead of “kosmocentric.” You do not understand what any of these words mean.

The mental-rational structure of consciousness (“worldcentric”) is destroying the earth through its rampant materialism, consumerism, divisiveness, and greed. It had already exhausted its period of usefulness and had entered its deficient phase since the time of Leonardo da Vinci 500 years ago, at which time consciousness was ready for a new mutation.

“(such as the cognitive line, the musical line, the athletic line, the emotional line, the artistic line, and so on—none of which are ever equal in terms of degree of strength or development in an individual person)”

Nor are these “equal in terms of degree of strength or development” among races.

What I find most disturbing about this site is the preoccupations of its members. Makes you part of a “fringe crowd.” Kind of embarrassed to even post here. You don’t seem any different ideologically from the Nazis or the hate groups in White America. Are you a militant hate group, do you condone violent activities, or are you a member of some other kind of fringe element?

At any rate, there’s no consensus on any of these so-called racial “strengths”; whatever they “are,” and whatever “race” means.

“We live in a four-dimensional spatio-temporal world or possibly even in a higher 10-dimensional world (according to string theory): not in a temporally-frozen three-dimensional spatial world of our forefathers. Manifestations of the newest consciousness reflect this basic concern for time, having already conquered space in the Western European scientific objective world.”

Really? No shit? Maybe that’s why we are in such a tizzy, because, current trends persisting IN TIME our people will BE ANNIHILATED.

Who’s annihilating you? You seem paranoid.

“Both biological or spiritual evolution are hierarchical arrangements that disclose that some forms of consciousness (from a spiritual standpoint) or some forms of organization or complexity (from a physical standpoint) are higher and more inclusive and more encompassing than others.”

Yet the lower does not always yield to the higher. No nice comfy house, no government check, and you can’t devote your time and energy to your spiritual pursuits; no responsible, sustainable environmentalism vis-a-vis earth and Carl Sagan can’t investigate the universe/multiverse; and, if the White race goes extinct or is mongrelized out of existence, no more spiritual development. Do you honestly believe that if we let down our primitive, ethnocentric guard and just go with the flow to one brown world any of the achievements of Western Man will endure? Do you honestly believe there is no difference between Bach and a nigger? And if we all miscegenate with niggers there will be any more Bachs? LOL!

The world will do what it wants to do volunatarily. If white people don’t want to marry each other but want to marry other races, I don’t think there’s a whole lot that you can do about that.

Biological evolution ended 130,000 years ago in humans. Now it is spiritual evolution which is far more significant than any biological evolution. Whereas biological evolution takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years to occur, spiritual evolution take only decades or less.

Until 13,000 years ago, all societies were foraging or horticultural societies and were essentially the same. Europeans dominated the world for about 600 years. It is now in a decline. Hopefully, the future will no longer be dominated by concerns of domination or racial superiority, for your own sake since you will soon be the minority.

No, the hierarchy STANDS OR FALLS upon the solidity of its base. The basis of Bach is the White gene-pool.

Bach is fine; but his music is not the highest achievement for humankind. It is merely mental-rational. Debussy is more Integral than Bach; and represents the newest manifestation of consciousness.

At any rate, the most renown classical musicians and composers of today appear to be the East Asians; no longer Europeans or Americans. Myself, I prefer jazz.

As Nietzsche says:

“There is only nobility of birth, only nobility of blood. When one speaks of “aristocrats of the spirit,” reasons are usually not lacking for concealing something. As is well known, it is a favorite term among ambitious Jews. For spirit alone does not make noble. Rather, there must be something to ennoble the spirit. What then is required? Blood.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 05:32 PM | #

Not sure what your “thing” is against the Jews, since they only comprise 1.5% of the UK population. Whites are approximately 85%. I find it unbelievable that 1.5% of your population could rise up and persecute 85% of the population. Must be in your head.

Are you a fan of Hitler or something? You people are WACKED.

And I’m sorry to inform you that you have no Spirit. You have a lot of mythical and pseudoscientific beliefs: but nothing that indicates to me that you are spiritual whatsoever. At any rate, you do not believe in spirituality.

“The Newtonian physics and mechanistic thinking that you embrace went out in the early 20th century. Even among scientists. You do not understand physics [...]” (—Barbi)

Newtonian physics remains the physics of everyday life. It’s the physics used to do everything “mechanistic” we’re familiar with in our everyday world, such as play golf, tennis, baseball, soccer or billiards, design and operate cars, refrigerators, elevators, air-conditioners, and airplanes, launch satellites into orbit, send men to the moon. It didn’t “go out” in the early 20th Century. Non-Newtonian physics (Special and General Relativity and quantum mechanics and related disciplines) has its applications, as does Newtonian physics.

“When your focus is narrowed below the level of worldcentric, you are operating from a level of consciousness that is incapable of embracing ecological concerns or concerns for the rest of humanity outside of your own personal or ethnic concerns.”

Is the preservation of the white race an “ecological concern”? If not, why is its extinction of no concern?

“What I find most disturbing about this site is the preoccupations of its members.”

They mostly oppose what I refer to as the forced race-replacement of Euros. That they oppose that disturbs you? Tibetans oppose their own forced race-replacement (at the hands of the Chinese). Does that disturb you?

“Makes you part of a ‘fringe crowd.’ “

Less and less as more and more people figure out what’s going on.

”[I’m] kind of embarrassed to even post here.”

Don’t force yourself.

“You don’t seem any different ideologically from the Nazis or the hate groups in White America.”

The Nazis and hate groups must be OK then, because there’s nothing wrong with us whatsoever.

“Are you a militant hate group, do you condone violent activities, or are you a member of some other kind of fringe element?”

We hate only the ones forcing race-replacement on us, and only for that reason: they’re forcing race-replacement on us. We hate no race. We condone no violence.

“At any rate, there’s no consensus on any of these so-called racial ‘strengths’; whatever they ‘are,’ and whatever ‘race’ means.”

You’re confused about race. Look that word up in this site’s wiki.

“Who’s annihilating you?”

An alliance ring-led by the Jews and either supported or acquiesced in by the Protestant and Catholic élites. (That “Jewish” part is my opinion. That view is not uniformly shared here, so don’t conclude all people at this site share my views on that. Far from all do.)

“The world will do what it wants to do voluntarily. If white people don’t want to marry each other but want to marry other races, I don’t think there’s a whole lot that you can do about that.”

But the overlords are flooding our countries with non-whites. If the substrates of the people’s vital functions (their vital functions being, for example, things like breathing, eating, drinking, procreating, and so on, the corresponding substrates being air, food, water, partners of the opposite sex) are made other than what they prefer, and their access to what they prefer is made less available, they’ll have to take what’s available. It’s not a question of people not wanting to marry other races, but one of people not wanting their borders thrown open in the first place, which, had that wish been respected, would not have led to their marrying outside the race. Why wasn’t that wish of theirs respected? It wasn’t respected, in part, because certain of the overlords wanted them marrying outside the race.

“Biological evolution ended 130,000 years ago in humans. Now it is spiritual evolution which is far more significant than any biological evolution.”

Biological evolution continues. Scientists can tell when genes are under what they call “selection pressure,” and several are right now and/or have been in recent centuries and millennia. Humans are evolving.

“At any rate, the most renowned classical musicians and composers of today appear to be the East Asians; no longer Europeans or Americans.”

The Chinese, Japs, and Koreans? These races have produced a number of classical musicians and conductors, but classical composers of any prominence? I haven’t heard of any.

“Not sure what your ‘thing’ is against the Jews, since they only comprise 1.5% of the UK population. Whites are approximately 85%. I find it unbelievable that 1.5% of your population could rise up and persecute 85% of the population.”

If, completely apart from Jews, governing élites generally need be no bigger than, say, a few percent of the overall population, small percentages of Jews amount to much larger percentages of of the governing élites than their percentages of the overall population. If, on top of that, one considers how Jews possess many times the ethnocentrism of Euros, along with, in many cases, huge fortunes which they spend liberally in expression of that ethnocentrism, it’s not hard to see how they exert such influence.

“Are you a fan of Hitler or something?”

He did lots of good, though he made the extremely bad error of allowing himself to be maneuvered into another two-front war.

One of my replies to Barbiplease needs to be better put. Here’s a clearer re-working of it:

But the overlords are flooding our countries with non-whites.

If the substrates of the people’s vital functions (their vital functions being, for example, things like breathing, eating, drinking, procreating, and so on, the corresponding substrates being air, food, water, partners of the opposite sex) are made other than what they prefer through restriction they’ll have to partly take what they ordinarily wouldn’t.

When you restrict access to sound air, food, and water by substituting a portion with less sound, people will begin consuming the less sound from necessity though they may prefer the other. You can’t come along then, and see them consuming the less sound, and say, “Look, they like it: they’re consuming it.” Maybe it’s not their preference. Maybe they’d get a different kind if they could more easily, but the overlords’ restrictions limit the other kind’s availability.

It’s the same with the vital function of procreating. When the overlords come into a place like London or Birmingham, England, and deliberately (make no mistake as to its being deliberate) — and deliberately change its racial make-up from English to 0.001% English, 99.999% non-white, as they’ve done, the young Englishmen and Englishwomen among the remnant who are of age to look for marriage partners have had their access to partners of their race restricted, such that those of them still “marrying English” under those circumstances are no longer a natural English cross-section: many will take what’s available, procreation being a vital function like food, air, and water which, like them, won’t wait, and the overlords know this perfectly of course, and are planning on exactly this outcome — people won’t “hold out” but will drink the water, eat the food, breathe the air, and procreate with, what they might not prefer, when what they prefer is made less available.

It’s not a question of people explicitly saying they do not want to marry other races, but of people naturally not wanting their borders thrown open in the first place, which, had that wish been respected, would not have led to their marrying outside the race in large numbers.

Maybe their wish, the instinctive one not to have open borders, incorporated at some inner level a vague innate biological desire not to see mass race-mixing between themselves and non-whites, and if it did there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Why was that wish overridden by the overlords? Why wasn’t that wish of theirs respected? That’s the question. It wasn’t respected, in part, because certain of the overlords wanted them marrying outside the race.

Barbi, as for your own mixed-race heritage: no one here dislikes you for it or is against you for it. Everyone here “accepts” you.

No one here is against a little salt sprinkled on his eggs. What he’s against is being tied down, his mouth propped open, and five pounds of salt forcibly rammed down his throat. The one is fine; the other isn’t.

Newtonian physics remains the physics of everyday life. It’s the physics used to do everything “mechanistic” we’re familiar with in our everyday world, such as play golf, tennis, baseball, soccer or billiards, design and operate cars, refrigerators, elevators, air-conditioners, and airplanes, launch satellites into orbit, send men to the moon. It didn’t “go out” in the early 20th Century. Non-Newtonian physics (Special and General Relativity and quantum mechanics and related disciplines) has its applications, as does Newtonian physics. (Fred Scrooby)

Newtonian physics still holds in the physical universe beyond the subatomic world of Quantum mechanics. It is a complete misuse and misapplication to attempt to apply Newtonian physics to the interior (nonphysical) domains of reality such as consciousness studies or to confuse biological evolution with spiritual evolution.

What I see going on here is an extreme form of scientific determinism, genetic determinism, and “IQ Fundamentalism” that is highly reminiscient of Newtonian physics and the scientism from the early 20th century. This kind of mechanistic thinking went out of favor even among “the hard sciences” after the emergence of the social sciences, the soft sciences, the new physics, and in the aftermath of fascism and the Jewish Holocaust. What is more, you folks missed out completely on a crucial stage of development that occurred worldwide 50 years ago: the Cultural Revolution, a time when evolution reached a critical 10% “tipping point” to produce a fundamental shift in human consciousness from orange to green. In short, you strike me as a throwback to Newtonian physics, Neandertals, and Social Darwinism from a previous century.

Is the preservation of the white race an “ecological concern”? If not, why is its extinction of no concern?

I suppose that a certain amount of “ecological concern” could be applied to one’s heritage or ethnicity. But when it becomes your overriding concern, it is no longer a healthy (ecological) concern but is instead, an unhealthy and virulent concern that reveals that your self-worth is contingent upon your ethnic (group) identity. This is mythical (ethnocentric, childlike) concern for a sense of belongingness and security. This indicates that you have been arrested somewhat during a critical stage of ego-formation during the process of individuation. Rather than working on “white ethnic survival,” you should work on personal interior self-development instead to accept what is inevitable.

You cannot stop what is inevitable without force: the rapid accelerated growth of developing non-white world which has far outpaced the declining populations of developed white world. By the end of the century, you will drop from 23% of the world population to 9% and will be the “new minority” in your nation and throughout the planet. Better to adapt to the changing conditions and to spend your energies instead on person interior growth and self-development than to depend on some mythical group-identity.

“What I find most disturbing about this site is the preoccupations of its members.”

They mostly oppose what I refer to as the forced race-replacement of Euros. That they oppose that disturbs you? Tibetans oppose their own forced race-replacement (at the hands of the Chinese). Does that disturb you?

Are you referring to “the Euro,” currency, or to “the European people”?

The Tibetans were fleeing primarily for religious freedom and freedom from persecution and not for the survival of their “race.” Their case is completely justified given their situation which is completely different from yours, which differs from theirs in that you do not face any religious or any other persecution except in your minds.

An alliance ring-led by the Jews and either supported or acquiesced in by the Protestant and Catholic élites. (That “Jewish” part is my opinion. That view is not uniformly shared here, so don’t conclude all people at this site share my views on that. Far from all do.)

You try to represent the majority view of white Europeans when in fact most white Europeans oppose such kinds of racial bigotry. You therefore represent the fringe element. You are being tolerated; but you are not being forced into some imaginary forced “raced-replacement.” There are plenty of whites to choose from to marry within your race. The only whites who marry outside of their race do so voluntarily. And you should not try to speak on their behalf.

“Biological evolution ended 130,000 years ago in humans. Now it is spiritual evolution which is far more significant than any biological evolution.”

Biological evolution continues. Scientists can tell when genes are under what they call “selection pressure,” and several are right now and/or have been in recent centuries and millennia. Humans are evolving.

Biological evolution continues. But eeks ever slowly over the course of several millenia. Meanwhile, spiritual evolution has far outpaced any biological evolution such that humans are evolving spiritually in a manner of decades or less. An exponential rate of change in consciousness evolution is occurring but not so in biological evolution. And all it takes is a 10% “tipping point” in consciousness evolution to move beyond the current green revolution to an Integral “teal” revolution. When that happens (which is expected to occur 25 years or less in developed nations—unless we “blow ourselves up” or do something “stupid” first), your view will be widely regarded as regressive, backwards, and irrelevant. Unless you evolve.

If, completely apart from Jews, governing élites generally need be no bigger than, say, a few percent of the overall population, small percentages of Jews amount to much larger percentages of of the governing élites than their percentages of the overall population. If, on top of that, one considers how Jews possess many times the ethnocentrism of Euros, along with, in many cases, huge fortunes which they spend liberally in expression of that ethnocentrism, it’s not hard to see how they exert such influence.

The only “ethnocentrism” that the Jews practice that I’m aware of is the practice of marriage within their religion. You make it out to seem like a Jewish agenda against you, when in fact the vast majority of white Europeans (except with the uneducated Europeans, as is the case in the United States) consider your viewpoints to be unevolved and highly bigoted. Indeed…UK is going through “Obamamania,” so I hear. Obama has broken racial boundaries such that minorities will be elected into high offices globally. There is even talk now of other European nations wanting to do the same. Such as the French and their idea of electing a “Muslim President” and so on.

“Are you a fan of Hitler or something?”

He did lots of good, though he made the extremely bad error of allowing himself to be maneuvered into another two-front war.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 06:07 AM | #

For you to praise Hitler’s “good” while completely ignoring the anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, the death camps, and inhumane eugenics is beyond me. Are you are saying that that is good as well?

No wonder you feel “persecuted” by the vast majority of Europeans—most of whom are white and non-Jewish and ashamed of you.

————————————————————————————————————————

One of my replies to Barbiplease needs to be better put. Here’s a clearer re-working of it:

But the overlords are flooding our countries with non-whites.

If the substrates of the people’s vital functions (their vital functions being, for example, things like breathing, eating, drinking, procreating, and so on, the corresponding substrates being air, food, water, partners of the opposite sex) are made other than what they prefer through restriction they’ll have to partly take what they ordinarily wouldn’t.

When you restrict access to sound air, food, and water by substituting a portion with less sound, people will begin consuming the less sound from necessity though they may prefer the other. You can’t come along then, and see them consuming the less sound, and say, “Look, they like it: they’re consuming it.” Maybe it’s not their preference. Maybe they’d get a different kind if they could more easily, but the overlords’ restrictions limit the other kind’s availability.

It’s the same with the vital function of procreating. When the overlords come into a place like London or Birmingham, England, and deliberately (make no mistake as to its being deliberate) — and deliberately change its racial make-up from English to 0.001% English, 99.999% non-white, as they’ve done, the young Englishmen and Englishwomen among the remnant who are of age to look for marriage partners have had their access to partners of their race restricted, such that those of them still “marrying English” under those circumstances are no longer a natural English cross-section: many will take what’s available, procreation being a vital function like food, air, and water which, like them, won’t wait, and the overlords know this perfectly of course, and are planning on exactly this outcome — people won’t “hold out” but will drink the water, eat the food, breathe the air, and procreate with, what they might not prefer, when what they prefer is made less available.

It’s not a question of people explicitly saying they do not want to marry other races, but of people naturally not wanting their borders thrown open in the first place, which, had that wish been respected, would not have led to their marrying outside the race in large numbers.

Maybe their wish, the instinctive one not to have open borders, incorporated at some inner level a vague innate biological desire not to see mass race-mixing between themselves and non-whites, and if it did there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Why was that wish overridden by the overlords? Why wasn’t that wish of theirs respected? That’s the question. It wasn’t respected, in part, because certain of the overlords wanted them marrying outside the race.

None of this stuff is rocket science.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 02:22 PM | #

Had it not been for the Rennaissance, the invention of science, the discovery of the New World, European colonialism, slavery, the World Wars, materialism, consumerism, and Globalization then perhaps you wouldn’t have been in this current “mess” (as you seem to think you are in). Instead, you’d be living in the medieval period. So don’t blame it on “open borders.” There is only so much you can do to keep out the rest of the non-white world from your borders given modernization, rapid transit and the exponential population growth rate of the developing countries in the non-white world.

We are entering the planetary phase of development: which is the next evolutionary phase beyond industrialization. If you want to help your borders, then perhaps you will support laws that will encourage a multilateral approach (such as the U.N.) to help with global ecology and with modernization, education, and birth control in the non-white nations so that these people will stay within their borders and out of yours. This is the only thing you can do to help your situation short of closing your borders and adopting inhumane practices such as segregation, aparthied, eugenics, or “ethnic cleansing” to control those non-white citizens that are already within your borders and interbreeding with your kind. Even without permitting new non-white populations in, your nation is expected to have a non-white majority by 2050. What do you propose to do with the non-white citizens within your nation even if you were to close your borders and become isolationists?

Barbi’s nonsense speaks for itself. I’m a bit pressed for time this morning so won’t reply point-by-point.

Just never forget that what your fathers, uncles, and grandfathers fought World War II for wasn’t what the evil liars in D.C. and London told them they were fighting it for. They fought that war unknowingly in order to clear away the last obstacle blocking the path to the world Barbi craves.

They won. The last obstacle was cleared. The evil liars who sent them to fight lost no time in ushering that world in.

You hear it claimed that World War II was “the only good war.” That’s right, it was.

Something which might give you some perspective on what you see as “dominating the attachment” of White Nationalists (more aptly White Survivalists) is that we perceive, right or wrong, that there has been been by elites, (who judging from their available ideological writings are complete materialists), a systematic effort, ongoing for many years and markedly increased of late, to eradicate our kind and that “multiculturalism” (for white lands only) is part of that effort. Such concerns “dominate our attachment” the same way saving your children would if they were (or you thought they were, allowing that you may not agree with our assessment) trapped inside a burning house. I shouldn’t think in such a situation you’d be spending much of your mental energy “contemplating the cosmos”.

Posted by John on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 05:44 PM | #

“Kosmocentric” doesn’t mean spending all (or much) of your energy “contemplating the cosmos”: it means examining the whole of reality—both interior and exterior, both singular and collective. All of which are four different aspects of reality which constitute our being. Thus, “kosmocentric” is concerned with “being” and “becoming”: not merely with some distant hypothetical reality that is remote in both time and space.

The “Cosmos” series by Carl Sagan is fine; but it is not my primary concern as it is merely concerned with a “piece” of reality—namely, the exterior (objective-plural) portion of reality on the LR quadrant of KW’s “Four Quadrants” at levels 1 (galaxies), 2 (planets), and 3 (Gaia system):

As the quadrants above indicate, there is an interior-individual and exterior-individual component to every aspect of reality. There is also an exterior-individual and exterior-collective component to reality. Whereas “interior” on the left-hand side refer to subjective (singular) or intersubjective (plural) manifestations of being, “exterior” on the right-hand side refer to objective (singular) and interobjective (plural) manifestations of being. “Cosmos” is merely concerned with “exterior-collective” objects on the LR (lower-right) quadrant. When you look at their respective correlates on the other quadrants, you will find their interior and exterior correlates in both singular and plural form, depending on which perspective taken (“quadrant”):

Levels 1, 2, 3 (UL):

prehension, -, irritability

Levels 1, 2, 3 (LL):

physical-pleromatic, -, protoplasmic

Levels 1, 2, 3 (UR):

atoms, molecules, prokaryotes

Levels 1, 2, 3 (LR):

galaxies, planets, Gaia system

Likewise, “The Political Compass” can be found on “The Four Quadrants” above on the LR quadrant. It is essentially a LR stage 13 “Informational/Planetary” attempt to quantify, measure, and locate various socio-economic political schools of thought at stages 11 (“early state/empire”) and 12 (“industrial/nation-state”). It therefore is also merely a partial attempt to assess reality. Namely, merely a “piece” of reality on the LR quadrant. As we can see, there are different dimensions of the same reality existing on other quadrants:

The model above differs from “The Political Compass” in that it is not inherently vectorist. Rather than positioning yourself in a “point” in space, it is better to see the quadrants above as four different dimensions of yourself. You will therefore occupy all four quadrants simultaneously. The key then is to find which “level” you are at at every quadrant. However, as there are various different “lines” of development (i.e., the cognitive line, the emotional line, the psychosexual line, the social line, the musical or artistic line, and so on), you will occupy several different levels simultaneously when all lines of development are taken together. Nevertheless, there is still an overall “center of gravity” toward which most individuals will gravitate. 70% of the world population are at stage 11 at “mythic”: agrarian: early state/empire. My guess is that most of you are at stage 12, “rational”: industrial: nation-state. Every higher level or stage transcends and includes the lower in a nest of holons or spheres. The task is therefore to locate your highest sphere being and that is where you basically operate: at that particular level which transcends and includes at all prior levels down to every atom or bit of “stardust,” as Sagan would say.

The AQAL chart below, for example, concerns itself with a “piece” of reality, namely, the UL and LL interior quadrants of reality. They should be used in conjunction with the “Four Quadrants” above for a more comprehensive understanding of the interior dimensions and “stages” of development which are approximates to stages 0-13 on the left-hand interior quadrants above, which are colour-coded below.

“Multiculturalism” is a green realization (see “Altitudes,” AQAL chart below). It is a product of postmodernism which came about collectively in human consciousness approximately 50 years ago. There are good things and bad things to multiculturalism, such as the Civil Rights Movement (good) and moral relativism and a loss of value (bad). I am not aware of any multiculturalists going outright and trying to eradicate or annihilate anyone literally (as Hitler or other dictators had done and as many of you here contend and having gone to the links to better understand your perspective). They may look “down” upon you because you are basically “orange” insofar as center of gravity. This is because “orange” hates “green” and “green” hates “orange.”

In fact all “stages” or “colours” below from red to green think that their stages alone are the “best” and “the only valid” view. Whereas amber is premodern, mythical, subjective, and irrational, orange is modern, scientific, objective, and rational. Whereas amber arose during antiquity, orange arose 300 years ago during the Age of Enlightenment.

Green, on the other hand, is postmodern, pluralistic (interobjective), relativistic, and rational. Like orange, it is eternally-oriented (meaning, it tends to favor realities on the right-hand exterior (objective) quadrants and tends to deny the reality of interior left-hand quadrants). In that regard, both orange and green are the same.

Here is how green, “multiculturalism,” differs from “orange” rationalism:

If I were “green,” for example, I would not be able to sit and have any rational or meaningful discourse with any of you. I would be too fuming with “elitism” or “political correctness” to be able to do so.
A Brief Summary of Altitudes

The concept of Altitude is a radically new approach to development created by Ken Wilber and presented in his newest book, Integral Spirituality. In Holons, we use Altitude as a measure of development in both culture and consciousness. A simple way to explain it is to say that Altitude indicates the degree of developmental unfolding of items such as complexity, consciousness, and the number of perspectives one can take. For example, in consciousness development as indicated below, one goes from the capacity to take only a 1st-person perspective, to also being able to take a 2nd-person perspective, to also being able to take a 3rd-person perspective, and so on. Thus, in this example, you can see that the capacity for love increases (from being able to love only me, to being able to love us, to being able to love all of us, to being able to love all sentient beings….). For convenience, Altitude follows the natural colors of the rainbow, so you’ll often hear us refer to degree of development or degree of consciousness or degree of capacity to love, etc. by a particular color of the rainbow (as you will see below).

The occasions in Culture by Altitude are placed on the rainbow in terms of the degree of complexity that they have. In order to communicate effectively, you have to be able to hit the same degree of complexity as the person or persons you’re speaking to. To not make an attempt to adjust your speech to another sentient being is mean, a form of subtle aggression. By learning to spot degree of complexity, you can more effectively communicate and enhance mutual understanding.

We have selected three well-known examples of psychological models to show how easily Altitude can be used to measure them: Abraham Maslow’s “Needs,” Jean Gebser’s “Worldviews,” and Clare Graves’ “Value Systems.” To show the usefulness of Altitude of consciousness, if we say at a given time a person is acting “amber,” it means that generally their needs are for belongingness, their worldview is mythic, and their value system is absolutistic. Various cultural events can also be measured by their degree of development or their Altitude—and their movement from one to another as they unfold can also be followed: from archaic (infrared) to tribal (magenta/red) to traditional (amber) to modern (orange) to postmodern (green) to integral (turquoise) to even higher structures that are now evolving, and which we lump together and refer to as indigo. We estimate the Center of Gravity (COG) of a cultural happening (such as a book, movie, etc.) and place it on the Culture By Altitude chart. As always, these colors follow the rainbow and are identical wherever they appear.

Altitude colors measure essentially similar degrees of development wherever you see the same color (e.g. red is always some version of egocentric, self-protective, magical-power—and you know this will be essentially the same whether you’re measuring culture or consciousness or capacity for love or capacity for ethics). We often speak of Center of Gravity, for the central part of the action system, whether individual or collective, and the colors are primarily assigned to COG.

(Another revolutionary concept presented in Integral Spirituality is the difference between structures of consciousness and states of consciousness. Altitude applies primarily to structures of consciousness, and those structures generally emerge through a developmental sequence of stages or waves, starting at infrared and unfolding through a rainbow of possibility from there. Many states, however, are available to everyone no matter the Altitude of their COG. States include the three natural states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep, as well as altered states, peak experiences, intoxicated states, and the entire spectrum of spiritual states, from gross states of oneness with nature, to subtle grace and illumination, to causal formless absorption, to pure witnessing and nondual union with all that is arising. Because most states are ever-present, individuals can have authentic spiritual experiences at any stage or Altitude of development. States and stages, however, are deeply interrelated: research has shown that continued development through stages can help convert passing states into permanent traits, which is one of the more exciting findings of an Integral Approach….)

The Altitudes

Some representative instances of the major colors:

Infrared (archaic—a proto 1st-person perspective):

infrared Altitude signifies a degree of development that is in many ways imbedded in nature, body, and the gross realm in general. Infrared Altitude exhibits an archaic worldview, physiological needs (food, water, shelter, etc.), a self-sense that is minimally differentiated from its environment, and is in nearly all ways oriented towards physical survival. Although present in infants, infrared is rarely seen in adults except in cases of famine, natural disasters, or other catastrophic events. infrared is also used as a kind of catch-all term for all earlier evolutionary stages and drives.

Magenta (egocentric—able to take a 1st-person perspective):

Magenta Altitude tends to be the home of egocentric drives, a magical worldview, and impulsiveness. It is expressed through magic/animism, kin-spirits, and such. Young children primarily operate with a magenta worldview. Magenta in any line of development is fundamental, or “square one” for any and all new tasks. Magenta emotions and cognition can be seen driving cultural phenomena such as Burning Man, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or superhero-themed comic books or movies.

Red (ego-to-ethnocentric—able to take a 1st- to 2nd-person perspective):

Red Altitude is the marker of egocentric drives based on power, where “might makes right,” where aggression rules, and where there is a limited capacity to take the role of an “other.” Red impulses are classically seen in grade school and early high school, where bullying, teasing, and the like are the norm. Red motivations can be seen culturally in Ultimate Fighting contests, which have no fixed rules (fixed rules come into being at the next Altitude, amber), teenage rebellion and the movies that cater to it (The Fast and the Furious), gang dynamics (where the stronger rule the weaker), and the like.
Amber (ethnocentric—able to take a 2nd-person perspective):

Amber Altitude indicates a worldview that is mythic, and mythic worldviews are always held as absolute (this stage of development is often called absolutistic). Instead of “might makes right,” amber ethics are more oriented to the group, but one that extends only to “my” group. Grade school and high school kids usually exhibit amber motivations to “fit in.” Amber ethics help to control the impulsiveness and narcissism of red. Culturally, amber worldviews can be seen in fundamentalism (my God is right no matter what); extreme patriotism (my country is right no matter what); and ethnocentrism (my people are right no matter what).

Orange (worldcentric—able to take a 3rd-person perspective):

In an orange worldview, the individual begins to move away from the amber conformity that reifies the views of one’s religion, nation, or tribe. The orange worldview often begins to emerge in late high school, college, or adulthood. Culturally, the orange worldview realizes that “truth is not delivered; it is discovered,” spurring the great advances of science and formal rationality. Orange ethics begin to embrace all people, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, the US Bill of Rights, and many of the laws written to protect individual freedom all flow from an orange worldview.

Green (worldcentric—able to take a 4th-person perspective):

Green worldviews are marked by pluralism, or the ability to see that there are multiple ways of seeing reality. If orange sees universal truths (“All men are created equal”), green sees multiple universal truths—different ones for different cultures. Green ethics continue, and radically broaden, the movement to embrace all people. A green statement might read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, regardless of race, gender, class….” Green ethics have given birth to the civil rights, feminist, and gay rights movements, as well as environmentalism.

The green worldview’s multiple perspectives give it room for greater compassion, idealism, and involvement, in its healthy form. Such qualities are seen by organizations such as the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Doctors Without Borders. In its unhealthy form green worldviews can lead to extreme relativism, where all beliefs are seen as relative and equally true, which can in turn lead to the nihilism, narcissism, irony, and meaninglessness exhibited by many of today’s intellectuals, academics, and trend-setters…. Not to mention another “lost” generation in students.

Teal (worldcentric to kosmocentric—able to take a 4th/5th-person perspective):

Teal Altitude marks the beginning of an integral worldview, where pluralism and relativism are transcended and included into a more systematic whole. The teal worldview honors the insights of the green worldview, but places it into a larger context that allows for healthy hierarchies, and healthy value distinctions.

Perhaps most important, a teal worldview begins to see the process of development itself, acknowledging that each one of the previous stages (magenta through green) has an important role to play in the human experience. Teal consciousness sees that each of the previous stages reveals an important truth, and pulls them all together and integrates them without trying to change them to “be more like me,” and without resorting to cultural relativism (“all are equal”).

Teal worldviews do more than just see all points of view (that’s a green worldview)—it can see and honor them, but also critically evaluate them.

Turquoise (kosmocentric—able to take a 5th-person perspective):

Turquoise is a mature integral view, one that sees not only healthy hierarchy but also the various quadrants of humans knowledge, expression, and inquiry (at the minimum: I, we, and it). While teal worldviews tend to be secular, turquoise is the first to begin to integrate Spirit as a living force in the world (manifested through any or all of the 3 Faces of God: “I”—the “No self” or “witness” of Buddhism; “we/thou”—the “great other” of Christianity, Judaism, Hindusm, Islam, etc.; or “it”—the “Web of Life” seen in Taoism, Pantheism, etc.).

Indigo (continues and deepens kosmocentric—able to take 6th-person perspective and higher):

Evolution and development continues growing, and we have no reason to believe it will stop with the stage that we are at now. We have indicated all of these higher possibilities with the next color in the rainbow after turquoise, which is indigo.

“Such concerns ‘dominate our attachment’ the same way saving your children would if they were [...] trapped inside a burning house. I shouldn’t think in such a situation you’d be spending much of your mental energy ‘contemplating the cosmos.’ ” (—John)

John’s excellent rejoinder illustrates how Barbi’s blood connection to her son tethers her to the same worldly realities we recognize, notwithstanding all her spacy-floaty feelings of detachment therefrom.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, November 21, 2008 at 04:13 AM | #

You misunderstand me to think that my concerns are “otherworldly” rather than with “this world.” I hope that my explanation of kosmocentric has cleared that up.

The problem I have with people who feel as if they are “trapped in a burning house” is that they tend to become alarmist and irrational in that they feel that they are “dying.” Hence, they will do whatever it “takes” to keep themselves “alive,” turning to pseudoscientific claims if they must (e.g. “miscenegation” thread) to bolster their claims or cause. Picking only scientific claims that support their cause while rejecting scientific claims that undermine their cause. Science is supposed to be objective and neutral: but it is difficult to be objective, neutral or rational if your “house is burning down.”

————————————————————————————————————————

If you do not believe in spiritual evolution but only biological…

If you believe in evolution it must be random, not predetermined. Spiritual evolution, as shaped by Wilber, must deny Darwin and randomness in order to sustain itself. Otherwise the randomness of evolutionary behaviour will make “spiritual evolution” (which in reality cannot exist outside the biological) unpredictable. And sure enough that is exactly what Wilber does.

“KW: ...The standard neo-Darwinian explanation of chance mutation and natural selection - very few theorists believe this anymore. Evolution clearly operates in part by natural selection, but this process simply selects those transformations that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody understands.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Friday, November 21, 2008 at 06:42 AM | #

You are incorrect to say that if you believe in evolution, it must be random. You are also incorrect to suggest that I would think that evolution is “predetermined.” There is a sense of “determinism” that goes on in biological evolution but not in the sense of predestination or destiny. With increasing consciousness (spirituality), evolution begins to become aware of itself and its process.

Whereas biological evolution tends to be “random” (because it is “unconscious”), spiritual evolution is conscious so is capable of “choosing consciously” its course of evolution with increasing clarity over the course of time. It is therefore neither “random” nor “predetermined.” Wilber doesn’t deny Darwin or randomness: but only places these long-held theories in their proper perspective. We cannot, for example, explain spontaneous mutations across whole species from a classical Darwinian standpoint of slow and steady progress. There are fitful starts and stops everywhere throughout all of nature. Sometimes there are spontaneous mutations in both interior (spiritual, consciousness) evolution and exterior (biological) evolution across numerous individuals or organisms simultaneously. This is not a denial of Darwinian “slow progress” evolution or “randomness”: but merely an acknowledgement of the limitations of scientific understanding of evolution and the fact that with increasing consciousness, Spirit is capable of overcoming a great deal of the randomness and chaos that is inherent in these previously mindless processes.

Like orange, it is eternally-oriented (meaning, it tends to favor realities on the right-hand exterior (objective) quadrants and tends to deny the reality of interior left-hand quadrants). In that regard, both orange and green are the same.

What I meant to say above was, “Like orange, [green] is externally (object)-oriented, not “eternally”-oriented. All material objects are impermanent and transitory: they are “external”: never “eternal.”

Barbieplease: “Like orange, [green] is externally (object)-oriented, not “eternally”-oriented. All material objects are impermanent and transitory: they are “external”: never “eternal.”

You mean that this particular orange is orange now, but once it rots away, this particular orange will no longer be orange, it fact it will not be an orange, because it will have rotted away? But there is an eternal orange, which is orange, that conforms to orangeness, otherwise, obviously it would not be an orange?

Whereas the fruit, “orange,” is an object, the structure, “orange” (as in “Altitudes” or AQAL) is a “form.”

Moreover, there are “forms” (structures) and there are “Platonic Forms” (“archetypes”).

Whereas my use of “form” above is in reference to “structure” or “emergent patterns” over time (be they “empty structures” or patterns or structures filled with content), the Platonic Forms refer to a particular universal ideal or highest manifestation or “archetype” of an “idea” or ‘thing’: say, the “Form” of ‘dog.’

In Buddhism, there is “manifestation” (objects) and there is “unmanifest formless void” (emptiness).

Because all manifestations (whether “subjects” or objects) take on some “form,” they never manifest simply as vacuous or “formless void” but, instead, take on some sort of pattern or “structure.” These “structures” (i.e., magenta, red, orange, green, etc.) are not in reference to the contents “filling” the structure but moreso the “pattern” these contents create. Such as “morphogenetic fields” (Rupert Sheldrake) which, in themselves, do not refer to “anything” in particular but only to patterns or structures.

Just never forget that what your fathers, uncles, and grandfathers fought World War II for wasn’t what the evil liars in D.C. and London told them they were fighting it for. They fought that war unknowingly in order to clear away the last obstacle blocking the path to the world Barbi craves.

They won. The last obstacle was cleared. The evil liars who sent them to fight lost no time in ushering that world in.

You hear it claimed that World War II was “the only good war.” That’s right, it was.

Barbiplease: “These “structures” (i.e., magenta, red, orange, green, etc.) are not in reference to the contents “filling” the structure but moreso the “pattern” these contents create.”

So the “structure” (the color orange) is perceived as light reflects off the “object” (the fruit: orange) which conforms to a “pattern” of content within a certain range which would only reflect light thusly, and presumably be perceived thusly, so long as it conforms to said “pattern”?

“I had grandfathers fighting on both sides so I tend to be ambivalent about the whole WWII thing.”

Fred means the Nazis were the good guys, because if they won, Europe wouldn’t be undergoing race-replacement. And the Jews wouldn’t have the “evil Nazis” meme to poison and stigmatize any form of White racial consciousness, solidarity and pride. Plus the Bolsheviks were genocidal scum bags. They starved 7-10 million Ukrainians to death. The guy in charge of it was Lazar Kaganovitch, a Jew. Most of his henchmen on the ground, confiscating the people’s food and livestock, were Jews. But you never hear about that “Holocaust” now do ya? Mmmm, wonder why?

Try not to break anything.

BTW, ever read a book called The Biology of Transcendence by Joseph Chilton Pierce?

Whatever did happen to that wintermute fellow? Simply beautifully put above. I could kiss him. Almost exactly what I’d say if I sat down to put my ideas on paper, only said far better than I could ever manage.

Now, for this Barbi lady, well done guys. The assholism comes to the fore yet again. Scrooby, as he occasionally does, catches himself by employing his individuals-don’t-race-replace trope:

Barbi, as for your own mixed-race heritage: no one here dislikes you for it or is against you for it. Everyone here “accepts” you.

No one here is against a little salt sprinkled on his eggs. What he’s against is being tied down, his mouth propped open, and five pounds of salt forcibly rammed down his throat. The one is fine; the other isn’t.

The first thing you should have done is click on her myspace and realize she’s not white and let whatever compassion you might feel direct your reply. In practical terms, forget about arguing WN to her. How can she possibly be expected to agree? Cap’n? What’s the point? “Okay, you’re right, Cap. I see it all clearly now. Please run me out of your country, or if that’s too much trouble, kill me on the spot.”? Silvers in this world are few and far between.

A better idea would be to gently nudge her towards racialist conceptions of life—gently, because they’re troubling, they’re downright offensive, that is if we’re talking about 99% of the world. But whether she cares to admit it or not, she has certain racial interests in reality. (How on earth can she live in Georgia, presumably surrounded by niggers, and ignore race? How can anyone? Truly a mystery.) Race for a “hapa” like her might not be of foremost importance, but so much of the sorts of things she values in life—like her lofty “worldcentric” philosophy—revolve around race (“worldcentrism” with niggers at the helm?), she can’t, if she’s to be honest and rational, completely ignore it, either.

Forms of racialist discourse which soften the blow are what is needed; forms of racialist discourse which lead to understanding and moderation on the part of opponents rather than to hardening of antiracist resolve. Even saying nothing is better than the standard we’re-so-white-we’re-so-right retorts that typically surface.

Barbi, I consider myself the house moderate around here, which mightn’t be apparent given my liberal use of ‘nigger.’ But there’s a purpose behind it which goes far beyond gratuitously offending blacks. Niggers are the ground zero of racial reality. Niggers do what niggers do because niggers are what niggers are and no amount of feel-good, happy-clappy, “worldcentric” egalitarian flapdoodle will ever change that. Western civilization, eastern civilization, liberal civilization, fascist civilization, anything and everything resembling civilization crumbles and collapses in the presence of niggers. And that’d be the case even if their physiognomy itself wasn’t so alienating. If antiracism requires entertaining the possilibity of negrification—and it surely does—then that alone is at least sufficient to give one pause to stop and reconsider the path he’s plowing, if not to change course altogether, ie as far as pragmatic reasons for reconsidering antiracism go, this is one of the best. And if the seed of willingness to reconsider (blanket) antiracism can be planted and permitted to sprout, one’s eyes open to a whole host of alternative conceptions of life, of society, of community, of nation, even of faith and ontology.

Though what I’ve said of niggers is undeniably harsh, it isn’t cruel. I’ve no desire to persecute or exterminate or even disadvantage them, beyond what a reasonable racialist political ordering would require. If one desires to help them—not an unreasonable assumption in lands that have known them, where time has formed certain ties that bind—it can’t be done by ignoring their inherent qualities. But the nature of those ties should also be examined: domestic niggers are one thing, but niggers abroad, the countless millions of Africa, what fact of reality might establish the requirement of an equal disposition towards them? None that I can see. But supposing a minimal duty of care is owed them, destroying the only nations that ever shown much interest in saving Africans will only ensure extreme misery, much greater than that known today, for their future generations.

...but this process simply selects those transformations that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody understands.

There’s Wilber’s God right there. Nobody, or at least no human understands the process so it must belong to God. Wilber is just another creationist. The only thing that keeps his religious cosmology breathing is the paucity of the fossiliferous record. There is no record. The whole process of evolving a wing from a leg by minute gradual random mutations is so far fetched as to be impossible to believe. Further, the intermediary mutations (half-wing) are not adaptive, neither can it run or fly, then, logically, some sort of explosive transformation took place. Thus the only miracle maker, taking a lowly land based reptile and making it Sky King, is the big guy upstairs. Now he pawns it off as some sort of pseudo-science that links metaphysics and science.

The problem is it falls down because 1) it’s not falsifiable and 2) the fossil record betrays him.

Hidden away in museums for more that 100 years, some recently rediscovered flatfish fossils have filled a puzzling gap in the story of evolution and answered a question that initially stumped even Charles Darwin. All adult flatfishes—including the gastronomically familiar flounder, plaice, sole, turbot, and halibut—have asymmetrical skulls, with both eyes located on one side of the head. Because these fish lay on their sides at the ocean bottom, this arrangement enhances their vision, with both eyes constantly in play, peering up into the water.

Opponents of evolution, however, insisted that this curious anatomy could not have evolved gradually through natural selection because there would be no apparent evolutionary advantage to a fish with a slightly asymmetrical skull but which retained eyes on opposite sides of the head. No fish—fossil or living—had ever been discovered with such an intermediate condition.

But in the 10 July 2008 issue of Nature, Matt Friedman, graduate student in the Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago and a member of the Department of Geology at the Field Museum, draws attention to several examples of such transitional forms that he uncovered in museum collections of underwater fossilized creatures from the Eocene epoch—about 50 million years ago.

“What we found was an intermediate stage between living flatfishes and the arrangement found in other fishes,” he said. These two fossil fishes “indicate that the evolution of the profound cranial asymmetry of extant flatfishes was gradual in nature.”

Filling in the fossil record instantly removes the justification for Wilber’s belief system.

Okay, I’m shocked. The label liberally applied to one demographic by silver above is simply a way of generating quotes for the future.

Allowing his name-calling to appear here permanently just plays into ADL and SPLC hands as well as those British left-wing racialists eager to collect quotes using such language to paint MR as a very different web site from what I thought it was.

Freedom of speech does not include suicide notes inserted into your site by anonymous bloggers.

Not only that, it is very bad manners to take a dump on your neighbor’s living room rug.

Scrooby, you might recall that I’ve conceded on a few occasions that the blatantly crude language you’re known to occasionally employ serves a purpose (unintended, in your case, though it is), that being a sort of shock to the system that signals that as off-putting such language obviously is something of much greater importance is under discussion. I fault you with failing to explicitly provide that greater context in relation to the crude remarks being made. In this particular instance, that “greater context” is, at a minimum, as simple as an appeal to self-interest.

Desmond,

Creationists demand a missing link between A and Z. If you give them L, then they want a missing link for A and L; give them G, they want D etc. The nail in the “it’s too complex” coffin is to demand a description of a universe that’s not too complex to require a creator.

If you wish to claim for yourself the mantle of respectability and “smartness” viz-a-vis discourse with the sleeping world you might like to step away from the “nigger this” and “nigger that” usage. It’s either a slightly eccentric, not to mention inconsistent, strategy for you to employ, or you are vying once again to be taken to our hearts as the now-you-see-him-now-you-don’t King of the Chameleons.

In any case, I don’t like hate speech on this blog and have banned various lowbrows for it. It is not necessary. If you don’t like being restricted to the latest prescribed name for negroes, and think “of Sub-Saharan African extraction” might be a bit long-winded, just say “negro”. As in negroid - one of the three classic races of Homo sapiens and perfectly taxonomically correct regardless of any past associations it had with the cotton-pickin’ south.

When I saw that last night I ignored it but this morning I’ll brush the gnat off: no Silver, no “embarrassment,” no “guilt,” no “backtracking.” Zero of any of those: Why in the world would anything in what I typically say here call for embarrassment, guilt, or backtracking??????????????????????? I’m baffled, Silver; you’ve stumped me, for the first time. Does saying two plus two induce feelings of guilt or embarrassment or prompt one to backtrack? Likewise for “compassion”: does that enter discussions of water being wet, the sun rising tomorrow, the sky being blue, or two plus two equaling four? When discussing race and race-replacement here I’m always very matter-of-fact, Silver.

I’ll repeat: no one at this site rejects Barbi, is against her, or dislikes her because of her mixed-race heritage. No “guilt” or “embarrassment” over anything I’ve ever said here, or need whatsoever to “backtrack,” is what caused me to say that. Now, if some reject, are against, or dislike her because of the way she makes herself sound like the pilot of the next Heaven’s Gate rocket ship outbound for the comet Hale-Bopp that’s something else entirely.

As for Silver, he’s perpetually trying to open up a chasm of enmity between the parts of Europe but it won’t work.

Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.